[Senate Hearing 110-555]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-555
THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION: A REVIEW OF THE REAL ID ACT AND THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
APRIL 29, 2008
----------
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION: A REVIEW OF THE REAL ID ACT
AND THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
42-752 PDF
2008
S. Hrg. 110-555
THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION: A REVIEW OF THE REAL ID ACT AND THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-752 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Jennifer Tyree, Chief Counsel
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Tara Shaw, Counsel
Jessica Nagasako, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 3
Senator Tester............................................... 6
Senator Coleman.............................................. 8
Senator Collins.............................................. 8
Prepared statement:
Senator Stevens.............................................. 59
WITNESSES
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Stewart A. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security........................................... 12
Derwood K. Staeben, Senior Advisor, Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of
State.......................................................... 14
Hon. Donna Stone, President, National Conference of State
Legislatures................................................... 34
David Quam, Director of Federal Relations, National Governors
Association.................................................... 36
Caroline Fredrickson, Director, Washington Legislative Office,
American Civil Liberties Union................................. 37
Roger J. Dow, President and Chief Executive Officer, Travel
Industry Association........................................... 39
Angelo I. Amador, Director of Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and Executive Director, Americans for Better Borders
Coalition...................................................... 41
Sophia Cope, Staff Attorney and Ron Plesser Fellow, Center for
Democracy and Technology....................................... 43
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Amador, Angelo I.:
Testimony.................................................... 41
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 121
Baker, Stewart A.:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 61
Cope, Sophia:
Testimony.................................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 220
Dow, Roger J.:
Testimony.................................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Fredrickson, Caroline:
Testimony.................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Quam, David:
Testimony.................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Staeben, Derwood K.:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 68
Stone, Hon. Donna:
Testimony.................................................... 34
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 75
APPENDIX
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted from:
Mr. Baker.................................................... 246
Mr. Staeben.................................................. 319
Mr. Quam..................................................... 349
Mr. Dow...................................................... 350
Background....................................................... 351
Additional testimony submitted for the Record:
Susan Gurley, Executive Director, Association of Corporate
Travel Executives.......................................... 364
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, State of Delaware, letter dated
April 28, 2008............................................. 366
Janice L. Kephart, former Counsel, 9/11 Commission and
President, 9/11 Security Solutions, LLC, prepared statement 369
THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION:
A REVIEW OF THE REAL ID ACT AND THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in
Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka, Pryor, Tester, Voinovich, Collins,
and Coleman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. I call the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District
of Columbia to order.
I want to first thank our witnesses for being here today to
testify as we review how the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of State are implementing the REAL ID Act
and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).
I also want to thank Senator Voinovich, my partner on so
many issues on this Subcommittee, and welcome him here, too.
Last year, following our hearing on REAL ID, he expressed his
interest in holding another hearing to examine whether Federal
agencies are prepared to implement both REAL ID and WHTI. I
share this concern and I am happy that we can work on this
issue together.
Both REAL ID and WHTI stem from the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations on how to improve our efforts to prevent and
deter another terrorist attack in the United States. REAL ID
was designed to enhance the security of drivers' licenses, as
most of the September 11, 2001 hijackers acquired some form of
U.S. identification document, some by fraud, which assisted
them in boarding commercial flights and renting cars. WHTI is
based on the Commission's recommendation that Americans have
their identities securely verified when entering the United
States.
I support the 9/11 Commission's recommendations concerning
identification security. However, as the saying goes, the devil
is in the details. Unfortunately, both REAL ID and WHTI are
controversial because of those very details. Both REAL ID and
WHTI pose significant threats to Americans' privacy and civil
liberties.
REAL ID calls for all States to capture digital images of
an individual's documents proving identity, such as birth
certificate or passport, and provide electronic access to their
databases to all other States. The massive amounts of personal
information that would be stored in State databases that are to
be shared electronically with all other States, as well as the
unencrypted data on the REAL ID card itself, could provide one-
stop shopping for identity thieves.
We have been told repeatedly that the model for this
network of networks is the Commercial Drivers' License
Information System (CDLIS), which allows States to exchange
information about commercial drivers. CDLIS currently stores
the name, date of birth, Social Security number, and State
driver's license, and number of 13.5 million commercial
drivers. Although proponents of REAL ID are quick to point out
that CDLIS has never been breached, the attractiveness of such
a network for computer hacking by identity thieves would
increase exponentially as the number of individuals in the
system increases to 245 million.
In addition, it is unclear what privacy and data security
laws would apply to this network of networks and what redress
mechanisms are in place for individuals whose data is lost or
stolen in another State.
Because of the lack of privacy details in REAL ID, this
expansive effort may create a false sense of security while
actually making Americans more vulnerable to identity theft.
Adding to my concern is the fact that some States are
implementing enhanced drivers' licenses (EDLs) to comply with
WHTI. EDLs are basically REAL IDs with a vicinity-read radio
frequency identification chip. I am afraid this poses serious
privacy and security risks, as anyone with a RFID reader will
be able to monitor the activities of EDL holders.
Both REAL ID and WHTI pose significant challenges to the
economy and the travel industry. For example, last year, the
State Department was not prepared for the overwhelming demand
for passports caused by the implementation of WHTI for
individuals traveling to Canada and Mexico. Due to the lack of
staff and planning, the passport processing time went from
several weeks to several months, causing many Americans to
cancel their travel plans. I feel that DHS will be in the same
boat in 2009 when the current extensions for REAL ID compliance
expire.
Several States have passed laws rejecting REAL ID and the
list is growing. DHS must be prepared for how it will deal with
partial compliance if the problems with REAL ID are not
resolved. The American public will need to know what to expect
in secondary screening. The Transportation Security
Administration will need enough staff on hand to quickly screen
passengers and avoid travel disruptions if States continue to
reject REAL ID. Federal agencies will need guidance on how they
can serve the public and provide benefits to those who visit
them and do not have the REAL ID-compliant cards.
Today, I hope to hear from both DHS and State as to how
they are preparing for these implementation deadlines and what
has been the impact of the current WHTI rules on the traveling
public so far.
Moreover, States are struggling to figure out how they are
to pay for what is essentially an unfunded mandate. The matter
is even more important given the current economic climate.
States are trying to figure out how to pay for schools, roads,
health care, and other essential services in a tight budget.
Now they have to figure out how to pay for secure ID cards.
Initially, DHS estimated the cost of implementing REAL ID
to be $23 billion, of which $14 billion would be borne by the
States. In the final regulations, the overall cost decreased to
$10 billion, leaving the estimated cost to the States at $4
billion.
The Federal Government should pay for this unfunded
mandate, but it is critical that we fix the problems with REAL
ID first. We cannot spend billions of taxpayer dollars to erode
Americans' privacy protections.
That is why I introduced the Identity Security Enhancement
Act, S. 717, with Senators Sununu, Leahy, Tester, Baucus, and
Alexander, to repeal REAL ID and replace it with a negotiated
rulemaking process and the more reasonable guidelines
established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004. As you know, that Act brought together
representatives from the Federal Government, State, and local
governments, privacy groups, and other stakeholders to develop
standards for drivers' licenses while ensuring privacy
protections. By bringing everyone together, I believe that we
can address the problems with REAL ID and have secure drivers'
licenses faster than the time frame proposed through DHS's
final rules.
I am pleased that our bill now has the support of the
National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, the
American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Democracy
and Technology.
We all support improvements in our driver's license and
identification cards, but Congress has the responsibility to
ensure that the changes being implemented by the Administration
really are improvements and are affordable, practical, and
increase security against would-be terrorists and identity
thieves.
Now I turn to my good friend, Senator Voinovich, for any
opening statement that he would like to make. Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really
appreciate you holding this hearing today about two subjects
that you and I have been concerned about for quite some time. I
think it is apropos that we do because the folks that are going
to be testifying here today are going to carry out these
programs for the rest of the year and we want to make sure that
the baton is handed off to the next Administration so that we
don't have some of the screw-ups that we have had in the past
implementing some of these programs.
I think we all know that since the 9/11 Commission issued
its findings and recommendations, we have passed several pieces
of legislation to improve our Nation's security by implementing
those recommendations. This has included legislation to
implement the Commission's recommendation that everyone,
including U.S. citizens, should carry a document enabling their
identity to be verified when they enter the United States as
well as the Commission's recommendation that the Federal
Government should set standards for the issuance of sources of
identification, like drivers' licenses. Easier said than done.
Congress's legislative efforts in these regards have
resulted in plans known as the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative, and I think, Senator Akaka, you referred to it as
WHTI. So if we keep using the word WHTI, everybody will know it
is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and REAL ID, and
that refers to the licenses that we are asking States to
produce.
There have been significant challenges in implementing each
of these programs. First, the implementation of WHTI at our
airports last year was, at best, chaotic. Through no fault of
their own, numerous American travelers missed their departure
dates to travel overseas when the amount of time it took to get
a passport increased from 4 to 6 weeks to several months. These
problems were due to an absolute failure to anticipate demand
by the State Department. This was outrageous, and quite
frankly, I believe it contributed to the defeat of the
President's immigration legislation initiative because people
believed that if the Federal Government could not do something
simple like issue passports, how in the world could it ever
implement the changes that were contained in the proposed
immigration laws.
There are times when I have asked myself, Mr. Chairman,
whether we did good when we created the Department of Homeland
Security, when we merged 22 agencies, over 200,000 people, with
several of those departments in trouble already, and with
different cultures. I have seen what has resulted of that. As
we look back on it, I really wish that the Administration had
been a little bit more aggressive in saying that maybe we were
biting off too much.
That is probably the biggest management change in the
world. No corporation would ever have undertaken it. Compared
to what we did with the Defense Department, at least there were
some strings that went through the various Defense agencies.
Here, we were trying to put together lots of departments, and
so I think that there may be a day when we are going to have to
look back and say whether we did this right and maybe look at
maybe breaking some of that consolidation up.
While I am told passport issuance problems have been
resolved, I am interested in learning what steps the
Departments of Homeland Security and State are taking to ensure
that travelers don't face similar or worse problems with WHTI
when we implement it at land and seaports next year. Are we
going to have another fiasco?
I am also interested in discussing how these policy changes
could impact cross-border tourism and trade. I visited the
Windsor port last summer when I was there with the U.S.-
Canadian Interparliamentary Group and heard about slow
processing in Canada because of staffing shortages. Imagine my
shock last week when I met with members of the Canadian
Parliament Group, who I am going to be meeting with in the next
several weeks and who told me about the lines and the waiting
times because of U.S. staffing shortages. I question how we can
successfully implement policies that could further slow cross-
border travel if we are doing such a poor job now to secure our
borders in a way that facilitates the free flow of legitimate
trade and travel.
Now, I want you to know this is important to States like my
State of Ohio, where in 2006 there was a $2.7 billion trade
surplus with Canada--and there are over 500,000 Canadian visits
to my State. We cannot have more embarrassments and problems
like those that occurred last summer as the Departments of
State and Homeland Security worked to implement WHTI at land
and seaports.
I also have real concerns about the REAL ID program, and
Senator Akaka, I think, did a pretty good job in his opening
statement to lay it out. I am troubled by the significant cost
REAL ID compliance imposes on the States. I don't know why we
never raised the issue that this was an unfunded mandate under
the legislation that Congress passed several years ago.
According to DHS regulations, REAL ID compliance is expected to
cost States almost $4 billion, yet only $90 million has been
appropriated for REAL ID grants to States to date. This is a
small sum when you consider that Ohio estimates that its
initial cost of compliance will be $15 million.
I am also concerned about the fact that the Department of
Homeland Security's regulations indicates States should utilize
databases like the Electronic Verification of Vital Events
System, to verify REAL ID applicants' information, even though
DHS acknowledges that this and other systems are not ready for
full implementation. What I am saying is there are six
databases that are important to issue these REAL ID cards and
those databases aren't even all up. When are they going to be
up? I question how we can go forward with a proposal that asks
a State to utilize systems that are not there.
As we implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we
must do so in a way that is intelligent, thoughtful, and
involves good management practices. We cannot proffer
artificial measures that will do more harm than good. Further,
we must allocate the resources necessary to implement the 9/11
Commission recommendations. In other words, are we giving you
the resources that you need to do the job that we are asking
you to do?
I look forward to hearing from you today and I thank you
for being here. I don't want you to interpret anything I have
said to say that I don't think both of you gentlemen are doing
the best that you can, but we have some real problems and I
want you to know, as a former mayor and as a governor of Ohio,
I was interested in good management and making sure that
programs that I was involved with worked smoothly.
You have a big burden on your shoulders and the real
challenge is this stuff is not going to hit the fan soon--you
will be gone. We want to make sure that next year, when a new
Administration takes over, that it doesn't hit the fan, that we
are all set. It needs to be smooth, and they will look back and
say that the Bush Administration did everything that they could
to make sure they eliminated the glitches so that the baton
would be passed off smoothly. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, and I want to
thank both you and Senator Voinovich for allowing me to be at
the Subcommittee hearing today. I also want to thank both our
panelists here for being here, Mr. Baker, especially. You have
got a tough task ahead to defend REAL ID, but I really do
appreciate you being here.
I want to echo Senator Voinovich's thoughts. My frustration
is with the policy. It is not with the people. And whatever we
say here today is directed at that and not at anybody
personally, because quite honestly, I have got some pretty
strong emotions about REAL ID. It is, as I see it, the worst
kind of Washington, DC boondoggle.
I think we have folks who really have lost sight of the
forest for the trees and we are implementing a law, and lost
track of attaining a goal that we all share, and that is making
this country more secure. The fact is that we are spending so
much time on REAL ID that I think it has become a distraction
from the very serious security challenges that do face this
country.
I live in Montana, right next to the Canadian border. We
still are some 1,500 agents short on the Canadian border, on
the Northern border. The technology that DHS planned to gain
control of the Southern border has been shelved because it
doesn't work and there are still significant other gaps on the
Northern border, for sure, other than the 1,500 agents that we
need to be addressing, sooner rather than later.
Mr. Baker, I have read your testimony and I do think that
we are looking for the same outcome. You are right that no
State wants to see its identity documents used in the
commission of a terrorist act and we need to do what we can to
prevent such an attack. But the question is really whether this
is the right way to go about it.
REAL ID was enacted with no debate or chance to amend it.
In the 3 years since the law was enacted, it has had all kinds
of unintended consequences and no benefit whatsoever when it
comes to making America more secure at this point. It is
incredibly expensive and complicated. It is burdensome to
States and individuals alike. And it is being implemented in a
style that makes ordinary folks cringe.
It was not possible for any State to comply with REAL ID by
the statutory deadline, so DHS created a game where they waited
until more than 2 years after it was enacted before issuing
rules that said if the States said they were going to comply,
you would treat them as if they were in compliance. However, a
number of States sent letters to DHS that specifically said
they could not or would not comply with REAL ID.
Montana's Attorney General, for example, wrote, ``Since the
Montana legislature will not convene again until January 2009,
I cannot authorize implementation of the REAL ID Act.'' Your
response to Montana was, ``I can only provide the relief you
are seeking by treating your letter as a request for an
extension, and gave my State and others an extension that they
never requested.
I might add that the bill that the Attorney General
referred to that was passed in 2007, I believe was passed
unanimously to not implement REAL ID, and the legislature is a
pretty diverse group. To get an unanimous vote is nothing short
of amazing.
I am pleased that Montanans were not arbitrarily penalized
under the law because I think that would have been a big
mistake, but I really fail to see what this exercise actually
accomplished other than to leave the details of implementing
REAL ID to the next Administration.
In short, the entire process of implementing REAL ID has
become meaningless. Extensions were granted without cause and
without any demonstrated security enhancements. Extensions were
almost denied to certain States despite the fact that many of
these States had actually done something productive in this
area. This legal bobbing and weaving has done nothing to
improve our homeland security.
But the consequences for States and for individuals are
very meaningful. They have no idea whether to go forward with
the database construction, to redesign the drivers' licenses
and the training of new DMV workers that REAL ID requires. If
States do, in fact, undertake these costly efforts, they do so
with no guarantee that the Federal Government will compensate
their efforts, as has been mentioned earlier here today.
And for individuals, the price may even be higher. More
expensive drivers' licenses with more waiting time at the DMV
may be the least of the individual worries. Above all, creating
a national ID card--and make no mistake about it, that is
precisely what this is--will open up countless opportunities
for an individual's personal information to be stolen or used
in a way that he or she has not agreed to.
So as you can probably tell, I am not impressed with the
REAL ID Act and I am not impressed with how it has been handled
and I don't have the confidence that things are getting better.
The Congress really needs to address this issue in a way that
makes sense for this country and not continue to keep limping
along from deadline to deadline.
Chairman Akaka, as he talked about in his opening remarks,
and others have introduced legislation that would take a new
approach, giving States a seat at the table, which I think is
critically important, and capitalizing on the improvements in
drivers' license security that already have been happening in
States. I am pleased to support him in that effort as a
cosponsor of that bill.
Like I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Baker, we have got
to play the hands we have been dealt. You have been dealt a
pretty terrible hand and I don't envy you having to go through
this. But I look forward to your testimony and I look forward
to explanation of some of the points that have been brought out
today by the opening statements and I look forward to the
questions. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Coleman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Senator Coleman. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to my
colleague from Maine and submit my statement for the record. I
would just briefly say that as a Northern border State, I have
been focusing on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and
actually, I will associate myself with the comments from my
colleague, Senator Voinovich. I have a lot of concerns--I have
traveled to Northern Minnesota--with some of the new rules
regarding passports and drivers' licenses, and hopefully there
is better communication now, but we have got to do it right. I
look forward to the testimony.
With that, I yield to my colleague from Maine.
[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
I want to begin by thanking the Chairman and Ranking Member for
holding this important hearing today on the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative and REAL ID. WHTI is an issue I have been closely working on
for many years now as a member of this Committee and as the previous
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Despite some frustrations and bumps along the way, I believe there
has been some encouraging progress in recent months with the extension
of the final deadline and the new passport card option for land and sea
travel. I was also thrilled the State Department announced the addition
of a walk-in, same day service passport office opening in the Twin
Cities at the end of this year or early next year. I am hopeful the
State Department will issue passport cards at this facility as well.
The WHTI Final Rule will go into effect in a little more than a
year and I want to be sure DHS and the State Department are doing what
is necessary to continue to ease the burden on our constituents,
especially those who live on the border. To that end, I have signed on
as an original cosponsor to legislation that will be introduced by
Senator Collins that would require DHS to establish temporary mobile
enrollment teams in communities along the border for the purpose of
assisting U.S. citizens in applying for passports and passport cards.
This is an issue we developed together last year and would be another
great step to help our border communities.
I've worked hard to raise awareness on the issues I've heard from
folks and businesses along the border with respect to WHTI. I am
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses what is being done to
effectively communicate what documents will be needed to cross the
border in June 2009 and how they can obtain them. One of the biggest
concerns I've heard throughout the entire WHTI process has been the
lack of communication that has accompanied the many changes. I am also
interested to hear how the new birth certificate requirement is
impacting border crossings and what is being learned from the changes.
Earlier this year, I visited the International Falls border to do a
crossing for myself to observe the process firsthand and was pleased
with what I experienced. That being said, we are on the doorstep of
some of our busiest border crossing months and DHS and the State
Department have a great opportunity to reassure folks through their
conduct that the June 1st implementation date can go smoothly. We must
not waste this opportunity. I look forward to hearing the testimony of
our witnesses and thank them for participating in this hearing.
Senator Akaka. Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this important hearing.
The attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, focused
our attention on the security of our borders and the security
of our identification documents. Recommendations for stronger
border security and authentic drivers' licenses were proposed
by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Both the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative and REAL ID have been flawed programs,
however, despite their worthy goals.
In the case of the WHTI, the Department of Homeland
Security has not been sufficiently attuned to how important
cross-border travel is to the everyday lives of those who live
in border communities. In the case of REAL ID, the Department
has not yet resolved longstanding privacy and funding concerns.
Meeting the challenge of securing the homeland requires
that our borders be closed to our enemies but open to our
friends. Along the Northern border, and in Maine in particular,
that principle has special meaning. Our Nation's border with
Canada has long been criss-crossed with the strands of kinship,
friendship, commerce, health care, and other shared activities.
Border crossings are a routine part of daily life in the cities
and towns along our borders and they are vital to the economies
of communities on both sides of the border.
The Aroostook Valley Country Club in Northern Maine is a
perfect example of just how integrated border communities are,
so I want to describe it to my colleagues. This golf course
literally straddles the border of Maine and New Brunswick. The
pro shop and the parking lot are on the American side of the
border, while the golf course and the clubhouse are on the
Canadian side of the border. Members and guests from both
countries come and go and have done so for more than 80 years.
Recently, however, the Border Patrol blocked the road leading
from Canada to the golf course. This inconvenienced local
residents, and once the golf course opens for the year, there
is a great deal of concern that it could actually endanger the
very existence of the course.
The challenges associated with the Aroostook Valley Country
Club are similar to those at numerous other border communities.
I have urged Customs and Border Protection to devise common-
sense solutions to border security issues, accommodating
legitimate travel and trade while preventing entry by those who
would do us harm.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative similarly poses
burdens beyond mere inconvenience. While DHS has taken some
important steps to accommodate legitimate concerns, such as
adopting the long-held view of Senator Coleman and myself that
it should not require children traveling with their parents to
carry passports, more needs to be done to relieve the financial
and commercial burden that the Initiative will place on our
Nation's border residents.
A positive step was the recent development of a passport
card for land border crossings at half the cost of a passport.
Its $45 cost is certainly an improvement. However, for a large
low-income family, it still poses a significant burden.
Reducing the cost of this document, having adequate port of
entry staffing and infrastructure, and ensuring that the public
is fully aware of the Initiative's document requirements are
necessary steps that must be taken before WHTI goes into
effect.
That last point about communication is particularly
important. I have heard time and again from people in the
hospitality industry in Maine and throughout the United States
that there is a lot of confusion about WHTI and that confusion
is discouraging some Canadians from visiting Maine and other
States.
Turning from border security to the issue of REAL ID, I
would note that the effective date for REAL ID has effectively
been moved to the beginning of 2010, as all 50 States have now
received extensions of the compliance deadline. These
extensions headed off what might have been a disastrous day on
May 11, when citizens of several States might have arrived at
local airports only to find that their drivers' licenses would
no longer be an acceptable ID for airport security.
While these extensions have averted a near-term crisis,
they do not resolve other problems with REAL ID. For example, I
remain very concerned about the implementation cost to States
from what is effectively an unfunded Federal mandate. I also
continue to be troubled by the potential privacy threats
associated with the program's information retention and
verification policies. Many of the problems that States are
encountering with REAL ID today would have been avoided if the
original provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 that
Senator Lieberman and I authored had not been repealed.
The Congress, the Administration, and States now have a
year and a half to come together to resolve these remaining
issues. If we fail, December 31, 2009, may see a group of
States exercising their right to say no to the Federal
Government. That does not advance the cause of homeland
security and it does not advance the debate.
We need to come together to solve the remaining problems,
and they are real problems. So once again today, I encourage
the Department to reach out and truly work with State
officials, technology experts, privacy advocates, and other
stakeholders, including the Members of this Subcommittee, to
minimize and address the very real cost and privacy concerns
that continue regarding REAL ID.
Again, I want to commend the Subcommittee Chairman and the
Ranking Member for convening this important hearing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
The attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, focused our
attention on the security of our borders and the security of
identification documents. Recommendations for stronger border security
and authentic drivers' licenses were proposed by the bipartisan 9/11
Commission.
Both the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and REAL ID have been
flawed programs, however, despite their worthwhile goals. In the case
of WHTI, the Department of Homeland Security has not been sufficiently
attuned to how important cross-border travel is to everyday life for
those who live in border communities. In the case of REAL ID, the
Department has not resolved long-standing privacy and funding concerns.
Meeting the challenge of securing the homeland requires that our
borders be closed to our enemies, but open to our friends. Along the
northern border and in Maine, in particular, that principle has a
special meaning. Our Nation's border with Canada has long been criss-
crossed with the strands of kinship, friendship, commerce, health care,
and other shared activities. Border crossings are a routine part of
daily life in the cities and towns along our borders and vital to the
economies of communities on both sides of the border.
The Aroostook Valley Country Club is a perfect example of how
integrated border communities are. Its golf course literally straddles
the Maine-New Brunswick border. The pro shop and parking lot are in the
United States, while the course and clubhouse are in Canada. Members
and guests come from both countries and have done so for more than 80
years.
Recently, however, the Border Patrol blocked a road leading from
Canada to the golf course. This inconvenienced local residents and, if
continued, could endanger the existence of the golf course.
In responding to the challenges associated with the Aroostook
Valley Country Club or those at numerous other border communities, I
have urged Customs and Border Protection to devise common-sense
solutions to border-security issues, accommodating legitimate travel
while preventing entry by those who would do us harm.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative similarly poses burdens
beyond inconvenience. While DHS has taken some important steps to
accommodate legitimate concerns--such as adopting my long-held view
that it should not require children traveling with their parents to
have passports--more must be done to relieve the financial and
commercial burden that WHTI will place on our Nation's border
residents.
A positive step was the recent development of a passport card for
land-border crossing at half the cost of a passport. Its $45 cost,
however, is still a burden for low-income families. Reducing the cost
of this document, having adequate port of entry staffing and
infrastructure, and ensuring the public is fully aware of the
initiative's document requirements are necessary steps before WHTI goes
into effect. That last point is an important one: People in the
hospitality business in Maine have expressed concern that confusion
over the WHTI requirement is discouraging some Canadians from visiting
Maine and other States.
Turning from border security to securing identification documents,
I note that the effective date for REAL ID has been effectively moved
to the beginning of 2010 as all 50 States have now received extensions
of the compliance deadline.
These extension headed off what might have been a disastrous day on
May 11, when citizens of several States might have arrived at local
airports to find that their drivers' licenses would no longer be an
acceptable ID for airport security.
While these extensions have averted a near-term crisis, they do not
resolve other problems with REAL ID. For example, I remain very
concerned about the implementation costs to States from what is an
unfunded Federal mandate. I also continue to be troubled by potential
privacy threats associated with the program's information-retention and
verification policies. Many of the problems that States are
encountering with REAL ID today would have been avoided if the original
provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 that Senator
Lieberman and I authored had not been repealed by REAL ID.
The Congress, the Administration, and the States have a year and a
half to come together to resolve these issues. If we fail, December 31,
2009, may see a group of States exercising their right to say ``No'' to
the Federal Government.
I encourage the Department to work with State officials, technology
experts, privacy advocates, and other stakeholders to minimize the
costs and privacy concerns that continue regarding REAL ID.
I commend the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for
convening this important hearing.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Collins, for your
statement.
I want to welcome our witnesses and thank you for being
here today. Testifying on our first panel is Stewart Baker, the
Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland
Security, and Derwood Staeben, the Senior Advisor on the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative for the Office of Passport
Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the Department of
State.
It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all
witnesses so I ask you to please stand and raise your right
hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Baker. I do.
Mr. Staeben. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let the record note
that our witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I would like our witnesses to know that although statements
are limited to 5 minutes, their entire statements will be
included in the record. Mr. Baker.
TESTIMONY OF STEWART A. BAKER,\1\ ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member
Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to
appear before you today and talk about the implementation by
the Department of Homeland Security of the REAL ID Act and the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, two initiatives, as the
Chairman said, that resulted from recommendations of the 9/11
Commission that are designed to secure identification and
protect our citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears in the Appendix on
page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At DHS, a big part of our job is making it harder for
terrorists to travel to the United States and we need to do
that at the same time that we allow innocent travelers to move
quickly and smoothly to their destinations. Doing those two
things requires two things in turn: Good information about our
adversaries, so that we actually know who we should be looking
for, who should get special scrutiny, and then a good way to
make sure that they don't change their identities when they
realize that we are onto them.
We talk a lot about screening and getting good information
about who our adversaries are. We have testified about that
often. We are less often asked about how we can make sure that
terrorists cannot easily change their identities to avoid the
scrutiny that we have brought upon them, and so I am very
pleased to be able to talk today about that aspect of our
initiatives.
False identification has long been a threat to the Nation's
security. For years, loopholes in our identification document
system have been exploited for purposes of breaking the law.
Many of us have been victims of identity theft, which is often
made possible by forged identity documents, and the same
criminal networks that helped illegal workers obtain fraudulent
identity cards so that they could use them to obtain jobs, that
same network also aided the terrorists who attacked us on
September 11, 2001. Eighteen of the 19 hijackers carried
government-issued IDs. Many of them were obtained fraudulently.
This led the 9/11 Commission to conclude that for terrorists,
travel documents are like weapons, and the Commission made two
important recommendations, that the Federal Government should
set standards for the issuance of sources of identification,
such as drivers' licenses, and that it should ensure that
people crossing the border are not exempt from carrying secure
identification.
To carry out these recommendations, Congress has enacted
and DHS is implementing two legal requirements. The REAL ID
sets the standards for security of documents that most people
use to identify themselves in the United States. Its purpose is
to make identity theft and fraud by terrorists and others much
more difficult.
And the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative requires that
everyone entering the United States have a passport or
acceptable identity and citizenship document. WHTI, as we are
going to call it, is designed to ensure that when we encounter
travelers at the border, they have a document that confirms
their identity and their citizenship, something that is not
true today.
I am going to stop reading the prepared statement here and
turn briefly to something that Senator Tester said in his
generous remarks, that perhaps this wouldn't be the easiest job
and perhaps we have been dealt a difficult hand to play. I
would be lying if I said I thought I was going to have a great
time for the next hour, but I will say that I am sustained
because every once in a while, I get a letter like the letter I
got from Maureen Mitchell from Madison, Ohio, just the other
day.
It begins, ``Dear Mr. Baker, as a repeat victim of the
crime of identity theft, I am writing to offer my support for
enhancing the security measures for issuing drivers' licenses
and State ID cards. The State-issued drivers' licenses and
photo ID cards fraudulently obtained by the identity theft
criminals in our cases''--she is talking about herself and her
husband--``were the weapons used to successfully assume our
identities, wreak havoc on our lives, and fraudulent obtain
$184,000 worth of goods and merchandise.''
She goes on to describe the first theft in 1999, when
criminal impostors were able to fraudulently obtain Illinois
State ID cards that displayed the criminal's picture and my
husband's name and data. They obtained $150,000 worth of goods
with that fraud. She took special measures after that to make
sure that her bank account was protected and only upon
presentation of a photo ID was the account to be accessed, and
yet 2 years later, the bank called her to say, we have some
unusual activity, and it turned out that there had been four
fraudulent withdrawals totaling $34,000 from her bank account
by a woman named Tina Payne, who had an Ohio photo ID card,
driver's license equivalent, that had Tina Payne's picture and
Maureen Mitchell's address and date of birth on it.
She goes on to explain the difficulty that she had clearing
her name and says in closing, ``Mere words fail to convey the
life-altering consequences my family and I have endured as
victims of identity theft. Our good names and personal finances
are one of the most private and sacrosanct areas of our adult
lives and they will never be truly restored. REAL ID security
protocol measures that stop terrorists, ID theft criminals, and
illegal immigrants from fraudulently obtaining DMV-issued
drivers' licenses and ID cards are of vital importance to our
national security, our national economy, and our citizens.
``As an ID theft victim and consumer, I will be happy to
spend a few extra dollars and wait a little longer in the line
at the DMV to ensure the safety and well-being of my identity
and our national security. The minor inconvenience is a small
price to pay for our own sake and the sake of our Nation. Thank
you for your efforts.''
So every once in a while, someone sees what we are doing
and agrees with us and we are delighted to help people like
Maureen Mitchell by improving the security of the drivers'
licenses that currently are used by so many identity thieves.
Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. And now we will hear from Mr.
Staeben.
TESTIMONY OF DERWOOD K. STAEBEN,\1\ SENIOR ADVISOR, WESTERN
HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Staeben. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Voinovich, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the role of the Department of State in
implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to
enhance the security of our borders and facilitate legitimate
trade, travel, and tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Staeben with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our primary role is to provide American citizens with
passports and soon passport cards so they can comply with the
new travel document requirements that take effect on June 1,
2009.
Our increased workload indicates that Americans are already
well aware of the new requirements. In fiscal year 2007, we
issued 18.4 million passports, a 50 percent increase over
fiscal year 2006 and an 80 percent increase over fiscal year
2005. Currently, more than 89 million Americans have passports,
roughly 28 percent of our population. Thus far in fiscal year
2008, we are seeing a 7 percent increase in receipts over the
same time period last year and our processing time is well
within the standard 4 weeks for routine service and 2 weeks for
expedited service.
Our initial workload projections indicated demand for U.S.
passports could reach as high as 26 to 29 million this fiscal
year, 30 million in fiscal year 2009, and 36 million in fiscal
year 2010. Although we continue to prepare for a possible 26 to
29 million this year, our current workload indicates that it
may be more in the range of 20 to 21 million. Although this
lower demand may be due to recent legislation extending the
implementation date, we fully expect to see an increase in
demand in the months leading up to June 1, 2009.
To meet the passport demand generated by WHTI, we are
building the necessary staffing levels and infrastructure. To
that end, we have hired hundreds of new passport adjudicators
and support staff since spring of 2007 and are continuing our
recruiting efforts into 2008 and 2009.
We opened the mega-passport center in Hot Springs,
Arkansas, 1 year ago to process 10 million passport documents
per year and we are opening a second printing and shipping
facility in Tucson, Arizona, this month with the same capacity,
for 10 million documents. We are also opening three new
passport agencies in Detroit, Dallas, and Minneapolis to better
serve our border communities. We are expanding our agencies in
Seattle, Miami, and Chicago, and we are doubling the size and
adjudicative capacity of the National Passport Center in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We have also established a reserve
corps of passport adjudicators to supplement our full-time
passport services staff during demand surges.
One of the key objectives of the Department is to ensure
that the passport application is as convenient as possible. The
most convenient way to apply for a passport is at a Passport
Acceptance Facility. Currently, there are more than 9,400 sites
at post offices, clerks of court, and other government offices
nationwide where citizens can apply for a passport. Since April
2005, when WHTI was announced, the Department has added more
than 2,400 facilities, many of which are located along the
Northern and Southern borders. In fact, there are currently 301
acceptance facilities located within 25 miles of the U.S.-
Canada border and 128 acceptance facilities located within 25
miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.
In response to the needs of the border resident communities
for a more portable and lower-cost alternative to the
traditional passport book, the Department will begin issuing
passport cards this June. To meet the operational needs of
Customs and Border Protection, the passport card will contain
vicinity-read RFID technology to facilitate entry and expedite
document processing at U.S. land and sea ports of entry. This
card is the result of an interagency effort to produce the most
durable, secure, and tamper-resistant card possible to the
American public using state-of-the-art laser engraving and
security features.
The Department has benefited from the collaborative
efforts, among others, of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Sandia National Labs, DHS's Forensics Document
Lab, and, of course, our colleagues at Customs and Border
Protection Agency. In consultation with DHS's Forensics
Document Lab, the card is designed with multiple layers of
overt, covert, and forensics security features to guard against
tampering and counterfeiting and to provide easy visual and
tactile verification to Customs and Border Protection officers.
It is important to note that there is no personal identity
information on the RFID chip, only a unique number that points
to the bearer's file in a secure government database. To
mitigate the risk of tracking, the card will be issued with a
protective sleeve to prevent unauthorized reading of the chip.
To encourage Americans to apply for passports and cards and
to level demand during our traditional peak season, we began
accepting applications for the passport card on February 1,
2008. As of yesterday morning, we have received 192,000
passport applications.
Public outreach, of course, is a key to successful
implementation of WHTI. The Department awarded a contract to a
marketing firm on March 3, 2008 to help inform Americans about
WHTI requirements, the new passport card, and the differences
between the card and a traditional book, and to encourage
Americans to apply early for their documents.
As we move toward full implementation of WHTI, we and our
colleagues at DHS will continue our public outreach efforts,
particularly in border resident communities, and will continue
our outreach to business associations and stakeholder
organizations. We, like our colleagues at DHS, are committed to
implementing WHTI in a rational, intelligent manner, one that
facilitates trade, travel, and tourism while enhancing our
national security.
I thank you again and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Staeben.
Mr. Baker, as you know, the REAL ID Act states that
individuals who do not possess a REAL ID-compliant driver's
license or identification card cannot use it to fly or enter
Federal buildings. Therefore, Americans without REAL ID cards
could be subject to secondary screening at airports. Given the
number of States that have passed laws against REAL ID
compliance, this could lead to major disruptions for the
airline industry. Can you tell us what steps you are taking to
ensure that TSA is prepared to handle the possible increase in
secondary screening after December 31, 2009?
Mr. Baker. As you know, we faced the prospect as early as
May of this year that we would be doing that, and at the time,
there were a number of States who had expressed opposition to
REAL ID, several who said that they would not implement it, and
we were in the process of preparing to handle the additional
screening requirements on May 11 of this year.
As it happens, and I think for very good reason, all of
those States found a way to comply with the security
requirements or to assure us that they are moving toward
compliance with those security requirements, notwithstanding
their statements and their legislation saying that they would
not implement REAL ID.
We expect that was a very practical solution. It has
improved the security and put a number of drivers' licenses and
put a number of States on a path to substantially increase the
security of their licenses by the end of 2009. We expect that
the same thing will happen in the run-up to December 31, 2009.
States faced with the question, do I want to improve the
security of my drivers' licenses or do I prefer less-secure
licenses that people can't use to get on planes without going
through secondary screening, have chosen to improve the
security of their licenses? We fully expect them to do the same
at the end of next year, which is what they did this year.
Senator Akaka. So did you have a backup plan for TSA?
Mr. Baker. I am glad to respond in a little more detail.
Obviously, we left ourselves some months between the deadline
for submitting a request for extension and the actual date on
which we had to begin implementing REAL ID in the airports of
the Nation, so we had some months of additional planning that
we could do and so the planning was at an initial stage.
But I can say that the plan was to focus first on the
airports that were in the State that failed to meet the
standards because we expected to see the largest number of
licenses there. That is the largest amount of and most
difficult planning. And we were considering a number of
possible measures to separate the people who had good drivers'
licenses or good ID from people who were unable to produce
licenses or ID that met the standards of REAL ID.
Senator Akaka. As I mentioned in my statement, I am
concerned about the network of networks that will emerge
connecting State motor vehicles offices with each other. In its
final regulations, DHS mentions the Commercial Drivers License
Information System run by the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators as a model for this network of networks.
AAMVA claims that all of the information in CDLIS is owned by
the States. Assuming that the laws governing CDLIS will also
apply to the REAL ID State network, can you tell me what
privacy laws govern the information in CDLIS, and if CDLIS is
breached, what rules apply to protect drivers whose personal
information is compromised?
Mr. Baker. There are Federal privacy laws that actually
apply directly to State DMVs, including the information that
would be stored and handled through the systems. In addition, I
would expect that any other State laws that provide for privacy
of that data would provide for, say, notification of breach. I
think that 40 or more States now have laws requiring
notifications of breaches of personal data. I believe that the
great majority of them apply to government agencies as well as
the private sector so that you would expect notification of
those breaches in accordance with State law.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Baker, cost is a major issue for States
in determining whether to comply with REAL ID. Allowing States
to use up to 20 percent of their Homeland Security grants to
pay for REAL ID is, in a way, a hollow solution. It is
essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of the approximate $80
million in REAL ID grants available today, how much does DHS
plan to give to States for development of the State motor
vehicle hub and how much will be set aside for the other
elements of REAL ID, such as improving card security and
operational or maintenance costs at State DMVs?
Mr. Baker. I think that is an opportunity to talk a little
bit about the funding that we have made available. Hundreds of
millions of dollars has been made available through the 20
percent rule, and while States may say, well, we would prefer
to spend that money on something else, it is nonetheless
available to offset the costs of REAL ID.
In addition, we have received $90 million in appropriations
for grants. We have asked for, I believe, $110 million in
fiscal year 2009 as well as an additional $50 million to pay
for IT costs that will benefit the States overall.
We currently have, as you said, about $80 million that is
available in a grant program that we will be making available
to States. We are still examining the question of how much we
believe a hub would cost. We continue to be attracted to the
idea of putting grant funds into the hub because, as I believe
others have said, one of the concerns is that we need
connectivity to several databases. The databases need to be
available to all States so that the States can get access to
that information to verify the particular documents they see.
Therefore, we know all States will benefit from the
construction of a mechanism for them to talk to all of these
databases and no one today has that connectivity. So it is
valuable and supplemental to existing expenditures.
So we expect to fund the construction of that connectivity
as part of the grant program. Some of that connectivity will
likely be, in effect, paying the cost of individual States to
hook up to the database, to the hub. That money could be spent
centrally or it could be provided to the States so that they
can make the hook-up on their own. We are still looking at that
possibility.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baker and Mr. Staeben, as you know, I am unhappy with
the passport issuance problems that resulted from the
implementation of WHTI at airports and I am extremely concerned
that we will have similar problems with the implementation of
WHTI at land and seaports. I am equally concerned with Homeland
Security's plans to implement the REAL ID Act. Will you or
representatives of your Departments commit to briefing me and
perhaps other Members of this Subcommittee on the strategic
written plans for implementing WHTI and REAL ID, including how
the programs will be transitioned to a new Administration and
who will manage the program throughout the transition? I am
really concerned who is going to carry it on. You are going to
be gone, and who is going to take care of moving that program
forward?
And also, on the issue of costs, how are they being
estimated and how are they being funded? I am extremely
concerned about the amount of money that is in the 2009 budget
and whether or not it is adequate for you to get the job done.
Senator Akaka and I are very concerned about the handing off of
the baton to the next Administration so it is not dropped.
Mr. Staeben. Thank you very much for that question, sir.
Yes, on behalf of the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the State
Department, I would commit to briefing you and any other
members on your staff on our long-term strategy, our plans in
order to meet the passport demand that will be generated by
WHTI, as well as to discuss our transition plans for the next
Administration.
I would also like to say that after we returned to our
normal processing levels last fall, we took a very intensive
review of all aspects of passport operations, from
infrastructure, staffing levels, lockbox operations, call
center operations, IT connectivity, printer capacity, as well
as the number of acceptance facilities around the United States
in order to take the necessary steps to see that what happened
last year does not happen again. We are currently building our
infrastructure and our staffing, as I mentioned in my
testimony, in order to meet an anticipated 26 to 29 million by
next year and 36 million by 2010.
As far as you asked about funding, in 2008, we submitted
Congressional notification for additional funding to meet--when
we learned that initially we could be facing 26 to 29 million,
we asked for additional funding. We currently have authority to
hire upwards of 700 additional passport adjudicators this
fiscal year. And the other point is in terms of long-term
funding, with Congress' assistance and the Passport Services
Enhancement Act of 2006, we obtained a funding stream to help
us to fund the additional passport requirements that would be
generated by WHTI.
Mr. Baker. Senator, of course, I would be glad to commit to
brief you on our transition plans for both of those programs.
As you know, we have taken the transition, which will be DHS's
first transition, very seriously. We have done a lot of
planning. I have personally designated career officials who can
carry over in the transition period because, of course, we know
that in the past, terrorists have exploited power transitions
and we don't want to see that happen again.
Senator Voinovich. Have you personally visited various
places on the Canadian border to see what is going on? I have
to tell you that the Canadian Parliamentarians that we have met
with have voiced some great concern about the lines and it
seems the mismanagement. There is supposed to be a line
apparently for commercial vehicles that is faster than the
other and it stacks up. They just are very critical of the
operation. Have you actually been up there to spend some time,
to see it and----
Mr. Baker. I have, and it is true that we have special
lanes with readers, in fact, using RFID in order to move people
faster. If the lane for the folks with the registered traveler
cards is blocked by traffic, then it is--until you get to that
lane, you don't get the benefits of being a registered
traveler. However, I have to point out that the lanes leading
up to the United States are in Canada and at the end of the
day, the Canadians will have to make the decision to build
infrastructure that allows those lanes to extend far enough for
travelers to get the benefit.
Senator Voinovich. I would like, because we are going to be
getting together in the next couple of weeks with the
Canadians, I would love to have your appraisal of where we are
and also what you believe to be their responsibilities on how
they could help us facilitate----
Mr. Baker. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. This effort. And you
understand that Canada is the No. 1 trading partner for 36 of
our States. It is our biggest trading partner. We have this
unbelievable surplus with Canada. Our economies are
intertwined. We have a place called Cedar Point that gets an
enormous number of folks coming down from Canada and they are
concerned about their business. This is a big deal and we
certainly want to make sure we secure the borders. But we have
got to make sure that in the process of doing that, we do not
stymie this economic vitality that is going on between our
respective countries and also just the travel and tourism
aspect of this, which is very important to both of our
countries.
It is my understanding that these databases for REAL ID
aren't up and it would seem to me that before you would ask
States to implement the REAL ID program, that you would wait
until those databases are up and then say, now they are up,
they are available, and give States a reasonable time to comply
now that they have all of the information they need to really
do the kind of job that they should be doing. Why we aren't
doing that is one question.
And the other question is, don't you think that if we are
asking the States to do this that the Federal Government ought
to pay for a good part of the infrastructure that they are
going to have to put in initially to make this happen? I mean,
that is a major part of the push-back. You are asking States to
come in with an enormous investment on something and saying it
is your responsibility when this is more than just the States'
responsibility. It is the Federal Government's responsibility.
We have mandated this in this legislation.
Mr. Baker. Two thoughts. On the databases, we have indeed
given States extra time, recognizing that the databases are not
up. Nothing that is required right through the end of 2009
requires them to utilize databases that are still under
construction. During the next year or two, we expect, with the
funding that we are going to be releasing, that many of these
databases will be available. Already, the Electronic
Verification for Vital Events has probably doubled or tripled
the----
Senator Voinovich. But what I am saying is you are going to
ask--you are saying to me, go ahead and do it now with the
databases that are in existence. Aren't you going to come back,
or we are going to come back and say, now they are all up. Now
do it over again.
Mr. Baker. No. None of the things that we are asking States
to do now are redundant of the things that they will be asked
to do once the databases are available.
And if I could just briefly, I will address the funding
question. Yes, we do believe that the Federal Government should
provide assistance to the States and we have provided, as I
said, made available hundreds of millions of dollars, some of
it directly focused on REAL ID to the tune of close to $200
million, if our fiscal year 2009 request is granted. So we are
bearing a substantial part of the financial burden.
How much more this will cost is actually still to be
determined. We all are using very speculative data that was
originally provided to us by the States when they were asked,
how much do you think this is going to cost you. They told us,
and all of us have been using that data since. So until we can
get some good data about the actual expenditures, we think we
have provided a very substantial part of the cost already.
Senator Voinovich. My time is up. Are we going to have
another round?
Senator Akaka. I will have another round, yes. Senator
Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I kind of want to follow up on Senator Voinovich's
questions here, and then we will go a different route later.
Mr. Baker, you talked about hundreds of millions of dollars for
REAL ID have been requested and in some cases appropriated, and
$200 million is a lot of money. But we are talking about a $10
billion program. If my math is right, if you had a program that
cost $1,000, we are talking about $20 to $30, to put it more in
layman's terms.
So you are right on one hand that there have been hundreds
of millions of dollars requested or that has actually come to
fruition, but on the other hand, you are talking about a $10
billion program, and $100 million here and $100 million there
isn't going to get it done. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I will be glad to. Many of the costs that
we saw in this program have to do with how rapidly people are
processed, how soon you require people to come in and renew
their licenses, and we have substantially reduced that cost by
providing the States with a longer period to bring people in
and by allowing them to extend for people over 50 for a very
substantial period of time so that they can get a lot of the
under-50s through their system in a reasonable time. That is
going to greatly reduce the cost. In addition, of course, we
have provided additional funds.
We will be asking the States, I think, to give us better
estimates of the costs, but I think we heard an estimate of $15
million from, I think, the State of Ohio as a cost. We have
heard numbers on the order of two to five from other States.
That doesn't add up to $10 billion.
Senator Tester. OK. So how much less would you anticipate
it being for overall implementation of the program?
Mr. Baker. It is hard to know. If you took a $10 million
cost from one State and you multiplied that by 50, you would be
looking at $500 million.
Senator Tester. OK. It is interesting. I just want to talk
about the 20 percent rule just for a second. The President
requested cuts in Homeland Security funding for the States from
$550 million to $200 million. Twenty percent of that can be
used for REAL ID to set up databases, background checks, DMV
employee checks, countless other mandates. For Montana, that
would amount to about $160,000, because we get about $800,000
total. Twenty percent of that is $160,000. I have got to tell
you, by Montana terms, where a dollar does go quite a ways,
that is a mere pittance. Any thoughts about how that can be
rectified?
Mr. Baker. Well, I understand you are using the figures
that the Administration proposed for substantially reducing
that particular program----
Senator Tester. That is right.
Mr. Baker [continuing]. At the same time that the
Administration proposed $160 million worth of funding directly
for REAL ID. A $110 million of it would go straight to the
States and presumably Montana's share of that would be
substantially more than $160,000.
Senator Tester. OK. Well, you get to my concern. My concern
is the same concern probably--well, I shouldn't say
exclusively, but the funding part of this is a big issue for
States.
I want to talk about encrypting data on the card. There is
nothing put in the final regulations about it. Do you see it
that the information has to be encrypted, or should it not be
encrypted, or should it be encrypted, or what is going on
there?
Mr. Baker. We did not approach this with a priori sense of
what the right answer was, but when we talked to law
enforcement, they raised real questions about the value of the
machine readable zone for them if it was encrypted. You can
imagine, if you are a Montana State Trooper and you stop
someone in the middle of a long empty highway drive, you need
to be able to read that information quite quickly, and if you
have to try to find an encryption key, it is not going to be
easy.
Senator Tester. I get that, but when you talk about the
Maureen Mitchells of the world, if it is not encrypted, that
means that bar owners--I am not saying they are bad folks--
clubs, people on the Internet that want to get one of these
machines, and I think from my perspective that opens up
identity threat to a much greater risk.
Mr. Baker. Well, the information that is on the machine
readable zone is the same information that is on the face of
your driver's license. It doesn't include your Social Security
number. It includes your name, address, date of birth. That is
information that is very hard to hide in an Internet age, and
the notion that somehow because it is on a machine readable
zone it will become more available to identity thieves is, I
think, pretty speculative.
Senator Tester. Well, as long as you want to bring that up,
you have 17 requirements. One of those requirements is, in
fact, a Social Security number on the card, No. 4. Required
documentation, date of birth, Social Security number, address
of principal residence, and habitancy of lawful status.
Mr. Baker. That is the information that must be provided to
the Department of Motor Vehicles. It does not----
Senator Tester. But it doesn't need to be on the card. OK.
Mr. Baker [continuing]. Need to be on the card.
Senator Tester. Let me ask you about folks in Montana, a
couple issues. We get our drivers' licenses mainly by mail, is
there any difficulty there?
Mr. Baker. Certainly not mailing it out----
Senator Tester. As far as security, as far as that kind of
stuff?
Mr. Baker. We have not tried to restrict central issuance
of drivers' licenses because central issuance saves States a
great deal of money and can provide more security.
Senator Tester. OK. In Montana we have centralized
Department of Motor Vehicles, places where you go to get your
drivers' licenses. We also have a lot of places that may be an
afternoon once or twice a month where DMV employees go out to a
public building usually and take the tests and that material is
gathered up in a room very similar to this one. Is there a
problem with that?
Mr. Baker. I think not, from what I understand of the
process as you have described it. That is to say, people will
be collecting the information and then mailing out the
licenses. That should be something that can be accommodated
under REAL ID.
Senator Tester. OK. Does it concern you at all that after
all is said and done, we are really not going to have anything
until 2017 for sure everywhere, and that means if there are
gaps--that is 16 years after the terrorist attack on September
11, 2001. Does it concern you at all that we are extending out
that far for this particular item?
Mr. Baker. Obviously, we would love to be able to wave a
magic wand and have everybody have good ID today, but we know
that the biggest expense the States have was the process of
bringing people in. So if we are going to reduce the cost, we
have to extend that period. What we did is we said that 2017 is
when the last person over 50 is going to get a REAL ID.
Everyone under 50 will have it in 2014. We will be issuing the
first of those completely compliant in 2011. That means that we
will be able to check the IDs with confidence by 2014 of
everyone under 50, and if you have to make a priority, I think
that is an appropriate----
Senator Tester. So the extensions are done to save money?
Mr. Baker. If we could get this faster without breaking the
bank for the States, we would be delighted to do it faster.
Senator Tester. OK. Well, even 2014 is a ways out there. I
mean, I will be pushing 60 by 2014. That is how far it is out
there. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baker. It is not that bad, Senator. [Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
I will call now on Senator Collins, followed by Senator
Coleman. We will have a second round of questions. Senator
Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up, Mr. Baker, on the cost issue because
this is of tremendous concern to our States and the
Department's suggestion that States use a portion of an already
inadequately funded State Homeland Security grant program just
is not a sufficient answer. The cost to States of implementing
REAL ID by the Administration's own estimate is expected to be
approximately $4 billion over 10 years. Both the National
Governors Association and the National Conference of State
Legislatures have recommended that $1 billion be appropriated
this year to assist States in improving the security of their
drivers' licenses, a key part of REAL ID.
So first, let me ask you, does the Department support such
an appropriation, a targeted, earmarked--at the risk of using a
word that is in disfavor in Washington, but a targeted $1
billion appropriation for compliance with REAL ID?
Mr. Baker. The Administration has supported targeted
funding for REAL ID. The Administration budget put forward, as
I said, $110 million in grants and another $50 million in in-
kind contribution from the Federal Government. It did not
include the numbers that you are talking about, and obviously
at this point the determination of the size of the grant is
going to be determined by the Congress and not necessarily by
our recommendation. But at this stage, our recommendation is
that there be a targeted program, but the number that we would
use is $110 million plus the $50 million.
Senator Collins. See, that number puzzles me because the
Department's own analysis suggests that far more is required to
help States, especially since there are a lot of expensive
start-up costs, particularly for States like Maine, like
Montana, that have had to make sweeping changes in their
approaches. This is not something that is easily affordable to
any of our States. So I hope you will work with us to be more
realistic on those up-front costs because the amount that the
Administration is proposing does not begin to cover the costs
that our States are having to incur at a time when the economy
is poor and State revenues have declined sharply, leaving
shortfalls in many States.
Mr. Baker. We will be glad to work with you on this. We
recognize that the cost estimates have been difficult to arrive
at with any precision and we will be doing everything we can to
produce better numbers that are more accurate for you.
Senator Collins. Well, what would be most helpful is to
have the Administration actually support our efforts to
increase the funding for a targeted program, but I am going to
move on to another issue.
Your written statement notes that DHS plans to expand its
mobile enrollment centers for the NEXUS Trusted Traveler
Program in some of the Northern border States, and Senator
Coleman and I, in particular, have been pushing for DHS to use
these mobile centers in our States. If CBP is already deploying
these teams to the field, why doesn't DHS also instruct these
teams on how to accept passport card applications? After all,
these officers are very skilled at reviewing identity
documents. They could easily pass on to the State Department
the verified applications for further processing.
That would allow us to either greatly reduce or eliminate
the $25 execution fee that first-time applicants have to pay,
which is more than half the cost of the $45 for the passport
card. If you could get the passport card's cost down to $25, it
would be so much more acceptable to our constituents. And it
seems to me it doesn't make sense to send out these teams--you
also have TWIC teams that are going out. Why not use these
mobile enrollment centers as a more full-service approach so
that we don't have to pay $25 to the Postal Service each time
one of these applications is handled?
Mr. Baker. We certainly would support anything that would
bring down the cost of the card, bearing in mind Senator
Voinovich's stress that the State Department have the funds to
handle the load. But I think on the question of the exact
procedures for gathering the information that is necessary for
a card, I should defer to Mr. Staeben.
Senator Collins. Let me broaden the question to you because
last year's Homeland Security law instructed the State
Department to develop proposals for reducing that execution
fee, including the use of mobile application teams, before the
final rule on WHTI is issued. And the rule has been issued, but
the State Department has yet to come up with a plan to use the
mobile enrollment teams. Why isn't there more cooperation
between DHS and the State Department on this?
Mr. Staeben. Well, thank you for the question, Senator
Collins. There are a couple of questions in there. One, on
February 1 of this year, we did lower the cost of the execution
fee from its previous $30 to $25. This was after extensive
discussions with our primary acceptance facility agent, which
is the U.S. Postal Service, and after these discussions, we all
agreed to lower it from $30 to $25. The execution fee, of
course, is the fee that these entities, such as the U.S. Postal
Service, county clerks of court, charge on our behalf in order
to cover their costs for processing the acceptance of these
applications.
I think from the State Department's perspective, we are
looking for a more permanent solution in terms of increasing
our acceptance facilities along the Northern and Southern
border, which will be more permanent. We already have 301 on
the Northern border. In fact, there are 17 Passport Acceptance
Facilities within 25 miles of the Maine and Canada border
already. We have been working with the Postal Service both to
increase the number of acceptance facilities along the borders
as well as to encourage them to conduct more ``Passport
Fairs,'' which they have been doing very aggressively. I noted
in discussions with your staff several months ago that they had
already conducted at least two, I believe, in the State of
Maine.
So this is how we are approaching this. That, of course,
does not preclude discussions with the Department of Homeland
Security on other possible activities, but I will defer to Mr.
Baker since that falls under his purview.
Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired
and I hope my colleague is going to follow up on this, but this
just does not make sense. If DHS is sending enrollment centers
out, mobile enrollment centers, which I applaud the Department
for doing, for both the NEXUS program and the TWIC program,
surely these individuals who are skilled in reviewing identity
documents can also handle applications for the passport card
and thus pool resources here and allow for a significant
reduction in the fee. This is an example of the left hand not
knowing what the right is doing, or perhaps knowing but not
working together.
Senator Akaka. Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman. Let me follow up. First, do you have a map
showing the Northern border where these various acceptance
agents are located? I have seen some old maps, at least in
Minnesota, and the Northern border was pretty empty in those
areas right by it. Do you have anything that you have
available----
Mr. Baker. I did not bring a map of that.
Mr. Staeben. No, I am sorry. I do not have one with me. I
can provide that information to you.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information provided by Mr. Staeben appears in the Appendix
on page 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Coleman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to actually
take a look at that.
Second, just following up, and this is Minnesota-specific,
there is a new passport agency that we are opening up in the
Minneapolis area. If $25 of the $45 cost is an execution fee,
if folks then apply in a passport agency, does that mean that
the cost for getting the passport card would be less if they
are not working with the Post Office?
Mr. Staeben. The $20 cost of the card is based on cost of
service study, a requirement to recover the cost of producing
the card. So the execution fee is just an incentive. Basically,
it encourages the acceptance facilities to accept these
passport applications on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Senator Coleman. What Senator Collins and I are pushing
here is that if you have ways in which folks get these cards
without dealing with the Post Office or these acceptance
facilities--in other words, if you get it directly, if you are
not dealing with a third party, can we lower the cost? The
message here is it sure would make a lot of sense, at least in
my State where we have integrated communities. We have hockey
teams that go back and forth between Fort Francis and
International Falls.
And by the way, the exception for kids is still in place,
right? Minors will not have to be getting these cards?
Mr. Baker. That is true.
Senator Coleman. But then going to the adults, if, in fact,
you have--as I understand this fee, there are two pieces of it.
There is the execution fee, it is the administrative cost, and
then there is the incentive to some of these acceptance
facilities, Post Offices, for instance. But if folks can get it
directly, are there ways to get the cost of this card down to
the $20 or $25, either through the mobile teams that Senator
Collins has talked about that I support or working directly
with other facilities where you are not paying the Post Office
the $25 to $30?
Mr. Staeben. I would have to discuss this further with the
Department of Homeland Security----
Senator Coleman. I would appreciate that discussion, and--
--
Mr. Baker. And I think you do deserve a more detailed
answer and we will get it for you. I just want to point out
that the reason the States are complaining about the cost of
REAL ID is that it costs money every time somebody shows up at
the counter and hands you papers and says, ``This proves that I
am entitled to an identity document.'' Handing that burden to
the mobile teams doesn't mean that there isn't a cost to doing
it. There is a cost when the Postal Service deals with it. So
it won't be free to do something like that. We will examine the
question of whether it is nonetheless something that can be
done and what the implications would be.
Mr. Staeben. Yes. Also, I believe there may be a legal
requirement to collect the execution fee as part of the
application process. If it doesn't go to the passport
acceptance facility, such as the USPS, or to county clerks of
court, it goes to the U.S. Treasury. So we would have to
investigate that, as well.
Senator Coleman. There is no question, there is a cost of
processing a document, but at least as I understood the
breakdown, you have the administrative cost and then there is
this incentive for others who have their own costs. But if we
can short-circuit that or change that, then perhaps we can
reach the point where, again, we are paying the administrative
fee. There is no question about that.
Let me kind of step back a little bit. When we came to
January of this year, or last year, the system collapsed. Folks
didn't really understand that they didn't need the passports at
that time. We had all this pressure on passports. I dealt with
thousands of cases in Minnesota, thousands of folks who
simply--they paid the expedited fee and literally it was months
before they got a passport. The staff was listening to people
on Sunday nights before they were leaving on a honeymoon, long-
planned trip, etc., on Monday. I appreciate the fact the
Department then put in some additional facilities, has
increased the production capability.
As we fast-forward now to June 1, 2009, another deadline is
going to be approaching. How confident are you that we are not
going to have the disaster that we had at the beginning of last
year?
Mr. Staeben. Well, thank you for that question. As I
mentioned, or alluded to earlier, the plan here is to make sure
that we have the infrastructure in place as well as the
adjudicative capacity to meet whatever comes our way, whether
it be 32 million or 36 million. We also have built in trip
wires for surge capacity.
For instance, if we hit the first trip wire, we will draw
on our reserve corps of passport specialists that we have
trained. They have other jobs, but we can draw on them, if
necessary. The second trip wire is remote adjudication, where
we will draw on the expertise of our consular officers at
missions abroad to adjudicate renewal cases.
So everything that we have done and all the steps that we
have taken are to make sure that, first, we can meet an
anticipated capacity of 36 million by 2010, and then to build
in surge capacity so that if it does happen, we can respond
very quickly and do not have a repeat of last year.
In terms of informing the American people, particularly the
border resident communities, we have contracted with this
company which will begin its bulk outreach campaign probably in
September, with a follow-up in December. The reason we are
doing it then is because we are accepting the passport
applications now for the cards, but we will not begin producing
those until June. Then it will take a short time in order to
issue all those cards that have been in the system, so we want
to wait until September when we will have returned to our
normal 4-week turnaround time for passport card applications to
begin informing the border resident communities that the card
is now out there. You can get it within a short time frame.
Please apply now. And that still gives us 9 months before June
1, 2009.
Senator Coleman. I would hope there would be a very robust
public communication effort to avoid the kind of confusion, or
massive confusion that we had last year.
I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. There are other
questions. I know there are other panels and I don't want to
keep this panel here forever, so I anticipate submitting some
questions for the record.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Coleman.
Mr. Baker, States are concerned that strings will be
attached to the REAL ID grant funds. All States could use
funding to improve the security of their drivers' licenses and
identification cards, whether they comply with REAL ID or not.
I would like to know, if a State receives funding under the
REAL ID grant program, are they required to comply with REAL
ID? If a State chooses not to comply with REAL ID, will it have
to repay the grant funds?
Mr. Baker. We are clearly not going to give REAL ID money
to States who say that they are going to spend it on a yacht
for the governor, so we do expect to get the security benefits
that REAL ID requires from States that take these funds. And
some States, New Hampshire among them, said--they actually
received a grant and they returned it because they said, we
aren't going to comply with REAL ID.
Since then, I think the States that are looking at this
question have discovered that they can refuse to comply with
REAL ID and at the same time implemented all the security
features that REAL ID calls for. That has allowed a number of
States, including Maine and Montana, to say while we are not
implementing REAL ID, we are implementing the security features
of REAL ID because we believe in security.
DHS has been flexible and accepted the substance of
security without insisting on some kind of pledge of allegiance
to REAL ID and we continue to expect to do that. So I hope that
we can find a way to improve the security of State licenses, to
help underwrite the cost of that without having an argument
about what bumper sticker goes on the car.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Staeben, in determining its cost
estimate for REAL ID, DHS estimated that 75 percent of current
driver's license holders would actually get a REAL ID card. Do
you believe that those individuals who do not get a REAL ID
card will instead apply for a passport? If so, what steps are
you taking to prepare for the increase in passport applications
from individuals who do not want to or cannot receive a REAL ID
card?
Mr. Staeben. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, that was one of the variables in last year's
experience. We believe that there is a growing demand for the
U.S. passport for purposes other than international travel, as
a premiere document for identity and citizenship, and we asked
the contractor that conducted the survey last summer that led
to the projections that we were using until the recent
legislation indicated that we would be at 26 to 29 million and
there was an attempt, although not particularly successful, to
get a handle on that number. We are still trying to refine that
number as to how many are out there applying for a passport
book or a card for purposes of obtaining Medicaid benefits, for
purposes of voter registration, or for purposes of compliance
with the REAL ID.
But in general, we think that the 36 million is a little on
the high side, and yet we continue to prepare for that and we
are--our strategy is to remain flexible so that we can increase
very quickly if we need to, or we can scale back a little bit
on our recruiting efforts, if necessary, if in fact the numbers
aren't coming in as we anticipate.
As I said, we are also working with the contractor in order
to conduct yet another survey to follow up on that in order to
further refine those numbers and get a better understanding of
how many people will be applying for passport cards, presumably
since they are less expensive, for purposes other than
international travel.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Baker, in light of all of the recent
stories about personal data privacy breaches, it is
particularly important that REAL ID be implement with strong
protections for the privacy of personal data. This is
especially true because REAL ID essentially requires the
creation of a national database of driver information to be
shared between States. Yet the final DHS regulations contain no
plan to secure the shared driver information. Can you explain
why the REAL ID final rules did not lay out a plan for
protecting the personal data that will be accessible in the
planned databases?
Mr. Baker. First, we do require States to have security
plans for the data, and that is an important protection. We
want to leave room for States to make choices that make sense
to them on exactly how to implement that to accommodate their
individual circumstances and how they actually process data.
In terms of ways to approach this problem for the future
with respect to the hub, we expect to be addressing that in the
course of actually deciding how the hub will function and what
security measures will be in place, but that is a question for
the actual implementation of the grant and the contracts that
will produce the hub, and so we certainly do not expect it to
be without security features.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Baker, I want to commend your
Department, acting through Customs, for taking action to
enforce the Passenger Vessel Services Act on Hawaii's coast-
wide cruises. Maintaining a U.S.-flag cruise industry is
important to both Hawaii and the Nation as a whole. Not only is
this important to the State of Hawaii and to the U.S. economic
and national security, but this issue is important to me
personally. I hope that Customs will adopt the rule that
adequately protects markets where U.S.-flag passenger ships
operate, and that does not have unintended effects elsewhere in
the United States.
Has the Department considered implementing a more limited
rule that specifically addresses the competitive harm to large
U.S.-flag passenger ships by foreign-flag ships evading the
coastwide laws in those markets?
Mr. Baker. Well, Senator, as you know, we have looked hard
at the possibility of addressing the question of what truly is
an international cruise and what is not. There have been strong
objections to the practice of having very brief stops after
midnight in a single port outside the United States as a way of
demonstrating that the international component has been met.
Our proposed solution which we have published attracted
quite a bit of controversy and we are looking very hard at the
comments, both favorable and unfavorable, to see how we can
best come to a final resolution. We are working at that very
hard and I hope that we will be able to announce something,
certainly in the next few months.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Baker. I will submit my other
questions for the record. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to know what plans you both have to explain to
the public the requirements and procedures and documents WHTI
is going to be requiring and the differences between the
documents. In other words, I think you need to clarify what is
going to be required. For example, the passcard cannot be used
as a substitute for a passport for air travel, and it is
important people understand that.
Now, you made some reference before about the passcard. For
example, I understand that TSA is going to require some day a
REAL ID as you go through airport security. Would the passcard
substitute for that REAL ID? If the States aren't going to go
forward with REAL ID, what is going to happen in terms of when
people go through and they are asked for their ID and it is not
a REAL ID, it is my old driver's license from Ohio? Is that
going to be adequate? There is a lot of questions that are out
there and it seems to me that you ought to do a lot of work in
working with travel and tourism, AAA and a lot of other
organizations to have a plan in place to make sure that the
information getting out is as clear as possible.
For example, I understand now that if you are coming from
Canada to the United States, in the old days, it was an oral
declaration. Now, I think they are requiring a passcard or a
driver's license or a birth certificate. Come June of next
year, it is my understanding that you are going to have to have
a passcard to come back into the United States or a passport.
These are things that really need to be clarified so that folks
understand just what they are going to use these documents for.
Mr. Staeben. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich, for
that question. The passport card was designed specifically to
meet the needs of the border resident communities. In fact, it
was as a result of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
that we issued in 2005. We received over 2,000 comments to
that. Many of these comments specifically addressed a need for
a document that was more portable and less expensive than a
traditional passport book. That is really the genesis of the
passport card that the Department of State is developing. It is
not a globally interoperable document and therefore it is not
under ICAO standards acceptable for the air environment. So we
designed it specifically to meet the needs of the border
communities.
Senator Voinovich. Could it be used as a substitute for a
driver's license?
Mr. Baker. Yes, it could. If you are using it to go through
TSA's checkpoints, we would, of course, accept it.
Mr. Staeben. The passport card is, by definition, a U.S.
passport and carries all of the rights and privileges of a U.S.
passport book. So wherever a passport book would be accepted--
--
Senator Voinovich. But for air travel, you need to have a
regular passport?
Mr. Staeben. That is correct, sir. In terms of public
outreach, the public relations firm that we have contracted
that will begin its outreach this September with a follow-up in
December going to focus specifically on the differences between
the book and the card so that people understand the
differences. If all they do is they live in a border community,
they cross the border, whether it is from Texas into Mexico or
Maine into Canada, this is their life, then the card would
probably be the correct document for them.
Senator Voinovich. For example, I will just interrupt you,
but we have a lot of folks in Cleveland who tell me that they
go up to Windsor to gamble. I suspect that the gambling houses
will tell them they need to get--by June of next year, they are
going to have to have a passcard if they expect to get back
into the United States, is that right?
Mr. Staeben. That would be correct, sir. A passport card
would probably be the document of choice in that situation if
all they are doing is driving to Windsor for those purposes.
If, on the other hand, you live in a border community and yet
you have occasion to fly, then probably you would want to order
both a passport book and a card, in which case the card is only
$20 because it is treated as a renewal. So it is $20 in
addition to the cost of the passport book.
The public outreach campaign that we have is going to focus
on the border resident communities. We look to DHS for the
broader national campaign. However, we are coordinating very
closely. In fact, their public relations firm is meeting with
our public relations firm this week to begin coordinating our
outreach activities. As I said, we will be focusing more on the
border resident communities in order to inform them about the
passport card.
Senator Voinovich. How about the Canadians? We have Cedar
Point that just gets a tremendous number of people coming in
from Canada to take advantage of it. What are those Canadian
people going to need to get into the United States come June of
next year?
Mr. Baker. The Canadian Government has not issued a
passport card, but Canadian provinces have indicated strong
interest in following up on the lead of the States in the
United States who have begun issuing enhanced drivers' licenses
that have the features of a passport card and can be obtained--
--
Senator Voinovich. But we are the ones that are going to
require it. I mean, for people coming in from Canada.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. We are going to tell them, you can't
come into the United States unless you have what?
Mr. Baker. And we have--well, certainly a Canadian
passport, also an enhanced driver's license from any of the
participating provinces. British Columbia is already issuing
them. Ontario, Manitoba, and others are launched on the
planning for issuing theirs so that there should be an
inexpensive alternative to a passport available to Canadians.
The Canadians by and large have passports at a much higher
percentage than the United States does, probably double U.S.
penetration in terms of having passports, so that it may not be
as necessary for them to have special cards to cross the
border. They may already have what they need.
Senator Voinovich. Well, one thing I would just leave with
you is that we need to do as much as we possibly can to work
with our Canadian brothers and sisters and try to get the best
information that we possibly have to each other and make sure
that things are as clear between us as possible, because I am,
as I say, very active in the U.S.-Canadian Parliamentary Group.
I have to tell you that our colleagues in the Canadian
Parliament are very critical of what we are doing. Now, I
suspect maybe some of them may be exaggerating it, but if that
is the kind of feeling that they have, I just wonder whether or
not you are spending as much time as you should with their
ambassador here, Mr. Wilson, to make sure that all of the
details are worked out and clarified so that there isn't a
bunch of finger pointing next year about not cooperating.
Mr. Baker. I think we have spent quite a good bit of time
with Ambassador Wilson and with our Canadian partners, working
very hard to make sure that information gets out. And in fact,
it is worth remembering that what happens in June 2009 is the
third and last stage in the process of imposing more effective
documents at the border. We imposed a requirement in January
2007 for everyone who flies to the United States and compliance
is at 99.8 percent today, and was.
When people realize you are going to enforce that deadline,
the word gets out. Every Canadian media outlet was focused on
that requirement and got the word out. When we imposed the
requirement--when we got rid of the requirement that you could
smile your way across the border without any documents, that
new requirement was imposed in January of this year and while
there was a lot of, again, what was called earned media, mostly
consisting of people on both sides of the border predicting a
disaster, everyone understood that they needed to have a birth
certificate as well as a driver's license or a passport, and
again, our compliance with that is above 95 percent today.
People do come into compliance if they know you are going to
enforce the deadline.
And now, I think, we have one last step to take, which is
to move from the idea that a driver's license and a birth
certificate is as sufficient as an actual passport. That will
take some doing. There will be a number of people who need to
get those documents. We are getting the word out. We are going
to spend $10 to $15 million over a period of years to make sure
that word gets out. But our biggest allies in this are the
people who will be covering it for the media, and we have had
very good cooperation, if you can call it that, from people in
the past saying this could be a disaster, watch out, and that
alerts everyone. They all go out and get their documents and we
have averted the disaster twice.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to echo the remarks of Senator Voinovich
because I have heard some of the same, and I hope the meetings
that you are having with the Canadian officials, are to a
discussion, because quite honestly, the points that they have
brought up to me, I hope to bring them up to you and I hope
that they are not just pushed away. I hope they are addressed.
I just implore you to do that.
I want to go back to the Department of Motor Vehicles
centralized. I asked you a question earlier on the first round
about if, in fact, there were people that go out to public
buildings and give the tests. I just want to make sure that
what I heard was correct, and you said you did not think that
would be a problem, that they could still go out to remote
locations, give the test, and send the driver's license through
the mail back to the applicant. Is that correct?
Mr. Baker. Yes. I would have to get into the details, but
if what they are doing is collecting the information so that
they have the information that would otherwise be collected at
the DMV----
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Baker [continuing]. Which I assume they have to do.
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Baker. Actually, central issuance, in our view, tends
to be more secure than having multiple places that just print
the license out on the premises.
Senator Tester. OK. So what you are saying is they couldn't
print them out on the premises?
Mr. Baker. You mean like in the back of the mobile----
Senator Tester. I mean, if they had--yes, in the back of a
mobile.
Mr. Baker. It is not that that is impossible, but it would
require particular care to make sure that the materials are not
subject to being diverted, etc.
Senator Tester. OK. What I need from you, if you could, in
your free time, if you could just send me a verification that
this is possible, and if there are any caveats, include----
Mr. Baker. We will be glad to look at that closely.
Senator Tester. I would appreciate it because in a State as
big as Montana, myself, for example, I live 80 miles from the
nearest one, 50 miles from the one that meets three times a
week, 35 miles from the one that is open once every month for
half a day, so it is a big issue.
Just a quick question and it deals with the September 11,
2001 terrorists. They were here long after their visas expired.
Why aren't we putting resources into a system to track and find
visa overstays?
Mr. Baker. We are. We have identified and deported more
people in the last year than I think ever before in the history
of the United States. And obviously, you have to prioritize
them because there are a large number of overstays. We have
just published a rule that will require everyone who comes to
the United States by air to check out biometrically upon
departure so that we can compare arrival and departures with
biometric identification of the identities, which will give us
a much better picture of who is arriving and who is leaving and
who is overstaying.
Senator Tester. That database is already constructed for
the biometrics?
Mr. Baker. No. We have proposed the rule. We are hoping to
get the rule into final form by the end of the year.
Senator Tester. OK, and so it will be operational when?
Mr. Baker. The data would begin arriving sometime in 2009.
It is not that we don't have some idea of who has overstayed.
We often have some idea of----
Senator Tester. I understand that, but----
Mr. Baker. This will improve it, yes.
Senator Tester [continuing]. To fill all the cracks in,
that would be done by----
Mr. Baker. I expect in 2009.
Senator Tester. OK, 2 years after--2009, that is next year.
You would have the database done by 2009?
Mr. Baker. Yes, the plan is to have the data come in----
Senator Tester. Good for you.
Mr. Baker [continuing]. And that would allow us to do the
matching.
Senator Tester. I think that is great. My last point, and
it is not a question, it is just a comment. The economic
impacts, the potential economic impacts of people being able to
flow across the border, Senator Voinovich talked about a little
bit, are incredible. From a farming perspective, being able to
go up into Canada and get repairs where they are not available,
sometimes down in the States, is huge.
And the other issue, if there is one good thing about the
dollar being down, it is the Canadians come across and they
like to spend money in the United States and they do it. And if
they can't get across the border or if there is a minimal
amount of hassle about getting across the border, they won't do
it, and so we need to minimize the hassle. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
I want to thank our first panel very much for your comments
and your statements, as well, and your responses. That will be
helpful to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Staeben. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
And now I would like to call our second panel. We have six
members of this panel. Testifying on our second panel are the
Hon. Donna Stone, a Representative from the 32rd District in
the Delaware General Assembly and President of the National
Conference of State Legislatures; David Quam, Director of
Federal Relations for the National Governors Association;
Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative
Office of the American Civil Liberties Union; Roger Dow,
President and CEO of the Travel Industry Association; Angelo
Amador, Director of Immigration Policy at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; and Sophia Cope, Staff Attorney at the Center for
Democracy and Technology.
As you know, it is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses and I would ask all of you to stand and raise
your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Stone. I do.
Mr. Quam. I do.
Ms. Fredrickson. I do.
Mr. Dow. I do.
Mr. Amador. I do.
Ms. Cope. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. I just want to express my regrets to the
second panel. I have got to go preside on the floor. I will be
checking out your testimony. I have already read a fair amount
of it and appreciate your presence here today, and I really
mean that. I am sorry I have to leave, because I would really
love to follow up these questions with you guys, too.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Again, I want to thank all of you for being here today. As
you know, your full statements will be placed in the record.
Representative Stone, please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DONNA STONE,\1\ PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
Ms. Stone. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member
Voinovich, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
appear before you today as President of the National Conference
of State Legislatures. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the State impact of
implementing the REAL ID and the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Stone with attachments appears in
the Appendix on page 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State legislators across the country share the goal of
ensuring the integrity and security of State-issued
identification and recognize the need to provide adequate
border protection. We hope to continue the dialogue with you
and this Subcommittee on these programs.
While NCSL had numerous concerns with the draft REAL ID
regulations issued in March 2007, we commend DHS's efforts to
provide States much-needed flexibility and to reduce State
costs, per DHS, in the final regulations. However, the road to
successful implementation is long, uphill, and in some places
has rocky terrain due to a number of ongoing uncertainties,
which include most importantly the Federal Government's
commitment to fund the REAL ID; the connectivity to and
governance of the databases that States will need to access in
order to verify the validity of identity documents; the true
cost of the REAL ID, including the user fees States will have
to pay when accessing these databases; and the Department's
recognition of State legislatures' critical role in the
implementation of the REAL ID.
I have provided more details on each of these items in my
written testimony and ask that it be submitted for the record.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them in detail
during the question and answer period.
Senator Akaka. It will be included.
Ms. Stone. In order to address some of these implementation
challenges, NCSL calls on Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act
and reinstitute the negotiated rulemaking process created under
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
and to fully fund the requirements. Again, while NCSL
recognizes that the final regulations provide States additional
time and flexibility to implement the REAL ID, the negotiated
rulemaking could address several remaining issues, including
waiving the verification requirements for applicants who
already have a federally-issued identity credential;
prohibiting Federal agencies from charging States transaction
fees for accessing the required electronic verification
systems; and instituting a legislative trigger that would
automatically release States from complying with REAL ID
provisions in any fiscal year in which the Congress fails to
appropriate funds for these purposes.
Regarding WHTI, I again want to thank DHS and the State
Department for recognizing the importance of cross-border
movement of people to the families, communities, and businesses
throughout the Nation, but particularly along the borders. I
also commend the Department's efforts to work with States to
create WHTI-compliant enhanced drivers' licenses and other
border crossing documents.
However, the experience of many of my colleagues in
developing EDLs does not encourage me. Washington State is the
first to conclude an EDL agreement with DHS, but I have heard
that it is now harder and more time consuming to obtain an EDL
than to get a passport. Other colleagues have expressed concern
about the use of RFID. We also believe that DHS should conduct
separate negotiations with each State and not use an EDL
agreement with one State as a cookie cutter for all.
Many State legislators who are wrestling with REAL ID and
WHTI EDLs have noted that the U.S. passport achieves the same
goals of both programs and that the process for obtaining the
passport is much less onerous than what is required for either
REAL ID or an EDL. The problem is the cost of a passport. At
NCSL's spring forum just last week, we considered resolutions
calling on Congress to reduce the cost of a passport.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that State
legislators are committed to working with Federal policy makers
to ensure the security and integrity of identity documents.
However, we see the road to REAL ID as being closed for
construction, and S. 717 is the best route to finalizing
Federal standards for State-issued drivers' licenses and
identification cards as long as it is accompanied by full
funding.
For WHTI, the road is bumpy at present, but if the Federal
Government chooses the proper route, a smoother ride is still
possible.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify and look
forward to questions from Members of the Subcommittee.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Representative Stone,
for your statement. Mr. Quam.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID QUAM,\1\ DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL RELATIONS,
NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Quam. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich,
it is a pleasure to be back before you to talk about an issue
that is of very large interest to governors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Quam appears in the Appendix on
page 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The position of the governors remains as it was the last
time I was before this Subcommittee. Our governors' policy is
that of fix and fund: REAL ID has to be fixed, it has to be
workable, it has to be cost-effective, and actually has to
increase the security of driver's license systems. And it must
be funded. When the Federal Government decides to come in and
regulate a traditionally State-based activity, the Federal
Government should pick up the tab.
Before I get into my testimony, I did want to mention
something that Assistant Secretary Baker said. He said that
governors were recently faced with a choice, do I want to
improve the security of my licenses or do I want less-secure
licenses, and that was the choice they were facing as they came
up on this deadline for asking for an extension. That was not
the choice the governors faced. All governors are committed to
having secure drivers' licenses. They are also committed to
combatting identity theft. There is not a single governor who
would say that they are not pro-security.
The choice that they were given, however, was whether or
not to inconvenience their citizens because their citizens and
their legislatures and themselves had questions about whether
REAL ID would work. Faced with that, ultimately, all States did
receive an extension, but for several States, it was a Hobson's
choice. It was a take-it-or-leave it and if you leave it,
citizens will be the ones who are punished. It wasn't much of a
choice, but all States did ultimately comply. I think we have
to have a more cooperative system in the future if REAL ID is
ultimately going to survive.
Three main points that I want to make. First, what does it
mean to be fixed, to fix REAL ID? All the focus must be on the
electronic databases and this is really the cornerstone of REAL
ID. It is also the source of all the uncertainty. When
governors ask me to brief them about the databases, they ask
the following questions: How will it work? Who will own it? How
is it governed? How does it protect my citizens' individual
data? What does it cost? We today cannot answer any of those
questions, and so when you talked about fixing REAL ID, I think
it is getting a handle on those systems and knowing what it is
before States can commit.
With regard to funding, again, governors believe that if
the Federal Government steps in to dictate how States should do
their business, then the Federal Government should pay for it.
DHS has made a big deal of the cost estimate, the fact that it
has gone down to about $4 billion. I think Assistant Secretary
Baker was questioning whether maybe that was high. States, on
the other hand, are questioning whether it is low.
That $40 billion estimate misses several key points. First,
we don't have cost estimates, nor are they included, on the
security of the manufacturing centers. What will the buildings
be required to have as far as making them secure? If all States
need to build Fort Knox, that estimate is going to be low.
Second, the transaction cost. This is the cost of actually
asking each database a question about the applicant before you.
DHS recently raised the rates for the SAVE database to 50
cents. Well, 50 cents--and that is the minimum--per transaction
when you have 242 million people is a large number that is not
counted in this original estimate.
And then third, in the spirit of Washington, DC accounting,
the assumption was made that only three out of every four
people would actually get a REAL ID. Well, it is easy to cut
your costs when 25 percent of the population is taken out of
who may have to be serviced. I think accurate numbers have to
be found so that we know what is being asked of States.
Finally, with regard to the grant process, governors were
very concerned about the fact that there is only $90 million
out there. States other than the State of Kentucky, which
received some initial grants with regard to vital statistics,
have not received one dollar. No money has come out under the
grant programs. The existing grant programs favor the creation
of the hub, a DHS priority, not a State priority. The
governors' position is that governors and States should be
deciding how those funds should be used. The appropriations
were for States, not for DHS, to determine how best to move
forward with REAL ID.
Finally, with regard to WHTI, governors are taking a very
close look at some of the pilot projects with regard to
enhanced drivers' licenses, including the Washington project. I
think some are encouraged by what they see as a more
collaborative effort than REAL ID has been to date. Governors
firmly believe that security and commerce can coexist, but it
must be a collaborative process. I think there is a long way to
go with regard to WHTI, but hopefully the cooperation that was
shown there can help yield results on REAL ID.
I would be happy to take questions. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Quam. Ms.
Fredrickson.
TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE FREDRICKSON,\1\ DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Ms. Fredrickson. Chairman Akaka, Congress stands at a
crossroads regarding our national policy for identification
cards. Following one path, Congress can choose to do nothing
and the REAL ID Act will gradually force the creation of a
national ID card system. Disregarding the growing national
consensus against this system, Congress could allow the REAL ID
system to limp forward over the next decade or more, wasting
billions in tax dollars and weakening, not enhancing, ID
security in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Fredrickson appears in the
Appendix on page 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or Congress can follow another, better path, heeding the
clear call of constituents and the States that want ID security
but believe it can only come with protection of individual
privacy. This more prudent path requires Congress to replace
REAL ID with a plan that allows and encourages States to
innovate, to improve ID security, but avoids the privacy and
security risks of a national ID card system.
On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), our
53 affiliates, and more than half-a-million members, we urge
Congress to choose the second path. Stop building a national ID
system that vastly increases the risk of identity theft and
instead move towards a system that recognizes that security can
be enhanced only by protecting privacy.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that this
Subcommittee work to enact your bill, S. 717, the
Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007, to replace
Title 2 of the unworkable REAL ID Act of 2005.
REAL ID will almost certainly generate ubiquitous demands
for presentation of compliant cards. The REAL ID could soon
serve as an internal passport. Card readers will proliferate in
daily life, and going to the grocery store or the gym or the
day care center will require passing through a series of
internal domestic check points. Soon, no American will be able
to operate without a REAL ID card, and every check point will
degrade the privacy of our lives just a little more.
The ACLU does not oppose identity security, but if REAL ID
survives, its database would create one-stop shopping for
identity thieves with the largest repository of private
information on all Americans--our birth information, Social
Security numbers, and biometric information. We don't want DHS
to impose a system that makes our private information an easy
target for identity theft.
If Congress fails to change course, then REAL ID will
continue to force wasteful expenditures of State and Federal
funds during precarious economic times. If REAL ID made us
safe, perhaps it would be worth the high price, but it won't.
When criminals and terrorists obtain REAL ID licenses by using
the stolen identities of law-abiding Americans, they will be
able to walk through our society without scrutiny.
As you can see from this map, the one with 2008 here,\1\
State opposition has led to the passage of numerous State laws
prohibiting implementation of the REAL ID Act. Governor Butch
Otter recently signed an act prohibiting Idaho from
implementing REAL ID. Idaho became the eighth State to enact
such a law, joining the seven States in red--Georgia, Maine,
Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and
Washington. Legislation is awaiting Governor Palin's signature
in Alaska to prohibit funding of REAL ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The map referred to appears in the Appendix on page 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten additional States have unequivocally stated their
opposition through passage of memorials and resolutions, with
many calling on Congress to repeal REAL ID entirely. These
States are Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
They appear in yellow on the map. Legislation opposing REAL ID
has passed at least one chamber of a State legislature in an
additional 11 States. And Missouri, confusingly, is green on
this map, not yellow, because in addition to passing a
resolution against REAL ID in 2007, the State legislature moved
binding legislation through one house in 2008.
Some States have asked for extensions of compliance
deadlines, not to signal compliance but simply to run out the
clock on the Bush Administration. Republican Governor Mark
Sanford of South Carolina sent a letter to Congress this month
calling REAL ID ``the worst piece of legislation I have seen
during the 15 years I have been engaged in the political
process'' and urged its repeal. When asked whether Montana
would participate in REAL ID, Democratic Governor Brian
Schweitzer explained, ``No, nope, no way, hell no.''
Despite DHS's rhetoric to the contrary, States' opposition
to REAL ID is accelerating, not slowing. So Congress should not
sit idly by while the REAL ID Act creates a national ID card
system at the cost of Americans' privacy and in the face of
widespread opposition. Congress must choose the better path and
pursue S. 717 and repeal REAL ID. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Dow.
TESTIMONY OF ROGER J. DOW,\2\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dow. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I am pleased to appear
before you on behalf of the Travel Industry Association and our
strategic partner, the Travel Business Roundtable, to discuss
the impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
on travel to the United States. We represent 1,700 public and
private entities that make up the $740 billion travel community
that employs over seven million Americans, generates $99
billion in taxes, and produces a trade surplus. Travel and
tourism is the front door of economic development and really is
a critical element in public diplomacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dow appears in the Appendix on
page 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I would like to thank you for your leadership in
assuring that our homeland security efforts are properly
implemented in an efficient and effective manner. We commend
Congress for prudently extending the WHTI deadline and defining
reasonable benchmarks to ensure its successful implementation.
The travel community is keenly aware and supportive of the
need to protect our borders and to prevent admission of those
who wish us harm. On the horrific day of September 11, 2001, it
took hours to bring the travel industry to its knees and our
economy followed weeks later, as did the world economy. We must
protect both the physical security and the economic security of
our country.
Unfortunately, we have instituted increased travel and
security measures while neglecting to properly communicate
these new and cumulative security requirements to international
visitors, and this has hampered travel facilitation and
resulted in a significant decline and impact on overseas travel
to the United States. We must not cause similar harm by not
properly implementing and communicating WHTI to Canada, our
closest neighbor.
I would like to discuss four points covered in my written
testimony. First, the travel community strongly supports a
properly implemented WHTI. It is good policy, as long as we can
enhance border security and as long as we have realistic
deadlines, robust advanced communications, and the necessary
infrastructure and staffing. TIA's support of WHTI is
longstanding and consistent, whether it be through testimonies,
starting a ``get a passport now'' website, and mobilizing more
than 30 members of the travel trade community in support of the
Administration's efforts on WHTI. We participate in the CBP
Travel Advisory Group, lending our expertise on communications.
As early as October 2005, we submitted comments on four
separate occasions to DHS and to States on the need to develop
a robust communications plan for WHTI. That did not happen,
resulting in last summer's passport debacle. Senators Voinovich
and Coleman talked about the left hand not talking to the right
hand. We just heard two entities say that they have hired two
separate public relations firms to accomplish the same job and
communicate WHTI clearly to our friends across the border and
to U.S. citizens.
There is so much at stake if we don't implement WHTI
correctly and properly. The negative receptions of poorly-
communicated air security rules over the last 7 years have
caused us to lose millions of overseas visitors. Since 2000,
the number of global long-haul travelers around the world to
locations other than the United States has increased by 30
percent, or 35 million visitors. During the same time period,
travelers visiting the United States has dropped by two
million, or 8 percent, and that is at a time when the U.S.
dollar is at an all-time low. We should be booming and we are
not.
Successful implementation of WHTI is extremely important.
It is a major priority because Canada is our closest travel
partner, as has been said many times today. In 2006, 40 million
Canadians and Americans crossed the border, Canadians bringing
$13.5 billion to the United States. Just a 5 percent decrease
in those Canadian travelers would cost us $700 million. We
can't afford economically and diplomatically to mess this up.
Communications is a critical key to making WHTI successful.
We must have a preemptive, sophisticated, well-funded, and
sustained public outreach campaign. DHS and States should have
prepared this campaign years ago and used all communication
channels--television, radio, print, Internet--outdoors. WHTI is
very important. This is a sea change in culture and law,
culture and practice and tradition from what has gone on in
traveling to the United States. This communications campaign
should have already begun and would better serve the needs of
our country in the future.
In S. 1661, the Travel Promotion Act, all of these factors
are included. It is supported by you, Chairman Akaka, by the
majority of this Subcommittee, and 40 additional U.S. Senators.
The Act creates a public-private partnership to explain U.S.
policies. It combines private execution with public sector
oversight and does not require any funding from U.S. taxpayers.
Last, the Subcommittee should be concerned about whether
DHS has the staffing and the technology in place for WHTI. We
all know that there are not enough CBP officers at all of our
ports of entry. This is troubling in context with WHTI being
implemented in 2009 during the busiest summer travel period,
when millions of Canadians will be traveling. We recommend that
you immediately lift the overtime cap for CBP officers and fund
adequate new hires in the future.
Our message is simple and clear. DHS and States must
successfully and effectively implement WHTI and all other
travel security programs. We live in a new era. Changing
security is not a one-time occurrence, but will continue in the
future. We must preserve our physical and our economic
security. Let us work together to protect America and project
America and welcome international visitors to the United
States. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Dow.
I have to step away for a few minutes, and I will call a
short recess until Senator Voinovich can return. He has
questions, and I will have questions for you, as well.
So at this time, the Subcommittee will stand in a short
recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Voinovich [presiding]. The hearing is reconvened,
and I apologize that I wasn't here for the testimony that has
gone before. One of the things about being in the Senate is
that you need to be at three places at the same time and
justify all of them, and I really appreciate the fact that
several of you have come a distance to testify today and we are
greatly appreciative of your being here. We are very concerned
about this and look forward to the rest of the testimony.
Ms. Fredrickson, you have testified. Mr. Amador, you are
up.
TESTIMONY OF ANGELO I. AMADOR,\1\ DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
POLICY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICANS FOR BETTER BORDERS COALITION
Mr. Amador. Thank you, Senator Voinovich, for the
opportunity to present today on the impact of implementation of
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. I usually refer to it
as WHTI, but since Senator Collins is not here, I will call it
``witty.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Amador with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I begin, I would like to ask that the three studies
I sent earlier to the Subcommittee with in-depth analysis of
border issues and recommendations on how to fix them be made
part of the record, together with my written testimony.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
Mr. Amador. Thank you. My name is Angelo Amador and I am
Director of Immigration Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and I am also the Executive Director of the Americans for
Better Borders Coalition.
The Chamber is committed to continue working with Congress
and the Department of Homeland Security and States to
successfully and efficiently implement WHTI. It is important to
keep in mind that the efficient movement of people, goods, and
services, and a secure border are not mutually exclusive or
competing objectives.
Furthermore, it is important to note that WHTI is not being
implemented in a vacuum. A number of inefficiencies at the
borders are threatening our competitiveness and WHTI places
further pressures on our eroding infrastructure.
The Chamber is concerned that the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-
Canada border crossings are increasingly becoming a competitive
disadvantage. The North American supply chain for many
companies is tightly integrated. For these companies, the
impact of border delays, fees, and strengthened security
procedures are magnified because their products are required to
clear Customs multiple times in the manufacturing process.
The reports I submitted for the record contain many
excellent recommendations to improve border security. I will
mention only three of them.
First, we need proper measurement of border wait times.
This needs to be addressed so the severity of delays and their
costs can properly be dealt with.
Second, there is extreme anxiety in the business community
due to the level of uncertainty created by border policies
announced and implemented before the infrastructure is in
place. The private sector needs to know what to expect in order
to properly adjust. Mr. Dow mentioned the Travel Promotion Act
earlier, so I am not going to go into details on that other
than to say that we also support it.
Third, inadequate staffing, reduced or changing hours of
service, mandates for secondary inspection of some products,
new fees, and outdated infrastructure are leading to long
delays with a significant economic impact on businesses without
apparently increasing security. We should increase funding for
CBP to guarantee the adequate staffing and extended hours of
service and upgrade our technology and infrastructure. In the
House of Representatives, the Putting Our Resources Toward
Security Act addresses some of these issues and we hope it can
also be introduced in the Senate.
As to WHTI, implementing it without addressing the existing
border delays and the additional pressures that WHTI imposes
may generate a new security problem with long lines of trucks
idling like sitting ducks at the busiest ports of entry. In the
final rule published this month, DHS stated that it intends to
fully implement WHTI on June 1, 2009, the earliest possible
date. The Chamber believes that more emphasis needs to be
placed on doing it right versus doing it fast. Before pushing
for full implementation, pilot programs need to be performed to
assess the potential impact of WHTI on cross-border commerce.
We must avoid the chaos, long lines, and 12-week paperwork
backlogs that were created in 2006 with the hurried
implementation of the WHTI air rules. The government was not
prepared for the changes it made in policy.
As to passport alternatives, the two most promising at this
time are passport cards and enhanced drivers' licenses.
However, for either document to be a true substitute to a U.S.
passport under WHTI, they should be accepted at airports of
entry as well as the proposed land and sea ports of entry.
Also, although the passport card application fee at first
blush seems reasonable--$20 for adults, $10 for minors--there
are a number of additional fees in addition to the execution
fee. You have picture fees and others. The approach explained
earlier by Senator Collins is one that we support of deploying
CBP staff to high-demand areas.
As to enhanced drivers' licenses (EDLs), the Chamber has
always called for the acceptance of a document that is as close
to being non-discretionary as possible. EDLs have significant
promise. However, the Chamber is concerned that there will not
be a critical mass of WHTI-compliant EDLs in circulation before
June 2009, the target for full implementation.
As to REAL ID, the Chamber has never taken a position on
this issue, but as long as Congress believes it should be
enforced or remain law, Congress should also consider statutory
changes to make REAL ID-compliant documents accepted as WHTI
compliant.
In conclusion, if we want to grow and remain competitive in
the global market, we need to address the deteriorating
problems at our borders and make sure that programs like WHTI
do not exacerbate the problems we are trying to fix.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward
to your questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Ms. Cope.
TESTIMONY OF SOPHIA COPE,\1\ STAFF ATTORNEY AND RON PLESSER
FELLOW, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Cope. Thank you, Ranking Member Voinovich. The Center
for Democracy and Technology has significant concerns with both
REAL ID and WHTI. In the few minutes I have here today, I will
focus on WHTI. However, both initiatives pose serious risks to
the rights of American citizens and Congressional action is
needed now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Cope appears in the Appendix on
page 220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDT takes no position on the requirement that American
citizens must now present a passport or equivalent document
when seeking to reenter the United States at the land borders,
nor do we find unreasonable Congress's desire to minimize
congestion at the border due to this new requirement. However,
the problem is that DHS and the State Department both have
chosen an insecure technology, vicinity RFID, for the passport
card and the enhanced drivers' licenses.
Also, the Departments have not given any serious
consideration to the risks to personal privacy and security
posed by the use of this technology, despite concerns raised in
thousands of public comments, two pieces of Federal
legislation, and DHS's own Inspector General.
Additionally, it is not clear why the Departments chose
vicinity RFID. It does not provide unique operational benefits
in the border crossing context and there is already a secure
infrastructure in place for the electronic passport, which
makes sense to use here.
I would like to make two main points and then offer some
recommendations for this Subcommittee. First, vicinity RFID
technology is insecure and inappropriate for human
identification. This technology was not created to identify
people. Rather, it was intended to track things, like
televisions, toilet paper, and toothpaste. It was designed to
be quickly and easily scanned by standardized readers,
unencumbered by security features, as products move through the
supply chain.
Sensitive information on the RFID chip can be picked up by
unauthorized people because the information is stored and
transmitted unencrypted and in the clear. The information can
be read by any reader compatible with the common standard. And
finally, these readers can secretly read the vicinity RFID chip
remotely, from distances of 30 feet, and potentially many times
more than that.
Second, the risks to privacy here are very real. For
example, the unique ID number on the RFID chip will, over time,
become yet another identifier that can be used to track and
profile the movements and activities of innocent Americans.
Many citizens will likely not use a protective sleeve, and even
those who do will likely take their cards out of the sleeve and
use the cards for transactions that have nothing to do with
crossing the border. The unique ID number on the RFID chip can
be easily collected, along with other personal information from
a transaction, such as name and address from a driver's license
or even a credit card number.
Therefore, the unique ID number will cease to be an
anonymous, meaningless identifier as both DHS and States have
asserted. Once a person's identity is associated with the RFID
chip, he or she can be unknowingly identified or tracked by a
network of compatible readers.
Also, because the RFID chip includes information about the
issuing entity, Americans traveling abroad could be identified
as such and be vulnerable to security risks. Last, because the
unique ID number on the RFID chip is transmitted in the clear,
unscrupulous individuals might be able to use the number to
access personal information held in government databases.
Recent privacy breaches at the State Department support this
concern.
Finally, I would like to offer some recommendations for
this Subcommittee. This Subcommittee should press DHS and the
State Department to abandon vicinity RFID technology in favor
of a machine-readable technology that requires the card to make
contact with the reader. This is consistent with the
Departments goal of prepositioning traveler information before
the travelers reach the CBP inspection booth.
In addition, this Subcommittee should insist that the
citizen's unique ID number be encrypted or otherwise protected
from unauthorized readers. This is how the new electronic
passport works now. This Subcommittee should also strongly
consider supporting legislation or regulations that prohibit
the unauthorized skimming of the RFID chip by businesses and
other third parties. And finally, this Subcommittee should
consider supporting legislation or regulations that prohibit
the use of the passport card and the enhanced driver's license
by government agencies that have nothing to do with border
security.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Were all of you here for the testimony of our two first
witnesses, Secretary Baker and Mr. Staeben?
[Chorus of yesses.]
Senator Voinovich. I have been in your chairs before, as
President of the National League of Cities and Chairman of the
National Governors Association, and I have always thought to
myself, if I get a chance to be where I am right now that I
would give people an opportunity to comment upon the testimony
of the people that were here before, because I am sure when
they were giving their testimony, there were some red flags
that went up with all of you. I would like you to share with me
your observations or your perspective on what they had to say
in terms of its accuracy. Ms. Stone.
Ms. Stone. Thank you very much.
Senator Voinovich. And by the way, Ms. Stone, one of my big
complaints, we used to have something called the Big Seven.
Ms. Stone. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. And I was kind of fortunate,
because I am a former county commissioner, a former State
legislator, and a former mayor and governor, and when I was
Chairman of the National Governors Association, we did unfunded
mandates relief legislation and welfare reform and I want to
say that, and you are a leader in your organization, it would
be very smart, I think, for those groups to get together to
develop some priorities about what they would like to get done
down here, because if you get all the local government, State
Government organizations testifying before the Congress on a
bipartisan basis on something and you are really committed to
it, you can move mountains. There is no question about it.
And my observation in the last number of years is that it
hasn't happened. And so Mr. Quam, I am going to share that same
thing with you. I have talked to Ray Sheppach about it and so
forth, but you guys could be doing a better job of getting your
act together and coming down here to testify, and I can tell
you, if you have problems with this legislation and all of you
get together, we are going to respond to your concerns. So I
want to start with that.
Ms. Stone.
Ms. Stone. Well, thank you very much for those comments.
NCSL's position on REAL ID has been very consistent from the
beginning and our message has been as follows. Fix and fund the
REAL ID or we call for its repeal. And our message is still
consistent on that. We have asked the Administration to provide
$1 billion in start-up costs for REAL ID. We have been very
proactive since the bill was passed. Unfortunately, we were
never invited to the table before the bill was crafted. And as
very big stakeholders in what will happen as a result of REAL
ID in the States, we should have been at the table. We should
have been part of the entire process. After REAL ID----
Senator Voinovich. Actually, it violates UMRA. I have asked
the question why it wasn't raised, but the way it came in, it
was a supplemental and I think it was one of the House members
that stuck it in at the end and there was very little
discussion about it and it just got zipped through here. I am
going to do some research on it. Indeed, it is an unfunded
Federal mandate.
Ms. Stone. It definitely is, and I thank you so much for
concurring with that because that is our position. And as you
know, sir, the States are required, at least 49 of them, to
have balanced budgets and that is--we do not have the luxury of
operating at a deficit. And every time an unfunded Federal
mandate is put down onto the States, it makes our fiscal lives
that much more challenging.
Senator Voinovich. Listen, I understand that. I was at the
White House when the President signed that legislation,
represented all the local government and State groups, so I
understand that.
Ms. Stone. I know you do. That was quite a victory for
NCSL, too. We played a huge role in UMRA and our President
then, who happened to be a Senator from Delaware, was actually
present at the signing of that agreement and that was one of
his proudest moments, I think, as President of NCSL.
We have appreciated being part of the conversation during
the rulemaking process and many of the concerns that were
raised by NCSL were listened to and have been addressed. But we
believe that there is much more room for conversation. We
believe that a return to a negotiated rulemaking process can be
very valuable. We believe it can move from a top-down coercive
process to more of a collaborative process, which has always
been what we are asking for, that brings all interested
stakeholders to the table.
We think it could produce more and even better buy-in from
the States. I don't remember if you were in the room when the
large displays were up here that Ms. Fredrickson brought, but I
probably don't have to bring to your attention the number of
States that have literally passed legislation that says we are
not going to comply. All the States----
Senator Voinovich. It is just a set up for a gigantic
crash----
Ms. Stone. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. And you have to regroup the
troops, and because we didn't touch the bases before this thing
was passed, we are now running into that problem----
Ms. Stone. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. In which you are basically
saying, now is the time to pull back on it, reevaluate it, get
into some of the issues that you have raised, Ms. Fredrickson
and Ms. Cope, about how we are going about doing it, and maybe
just reevaluate where we are at right now and see if we can't
remedy some of these things and understand that it is going to
take resources, but more important than that, cooperation.
And I want to say one other thing to all of you, we are
really in bad shape in terms of the Federal Government. One of
the things that I am looking at right now is all the money that
we are spending in Homeland Security and where is the money
going. A 374- or 375-mile wall down on the Mexican border, I
mean, you are looking at some things that make me ask--are we
allocating resources as wisely as we should be?
I don't need to tell you that our national debt today is
going to be over $10 trillion around the corner. We are the
biggest violator of the credit card in the world today. And we
have got some very serious problems facing our country, and the
truth of the matter is the resources that we need to deal with
our problems across the board are not available to us. No one
wants to talk about it, but it is a fact of life and everyone
should get it.
I wish that we had to balance our budgets, like I did when
I was mayor and governor.
Ms. Stone. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. But we have become--they talk about one
group being ``tax and spend.'' We have become the group of
``tax and borrow,'' and I think tax and spend is better than
tax and borrow because at least you have some tension there
that is going on.
Ms. Stone. Right.
Senator Voinovich. Other comments about the witnesses? Yes,
Mr. Quam?
Mr. Quam. Thank you, Senator. My biggest concern would be
that of tone, and something I mentioned to Chairman Akaka,
Assistant Secretary Baker had said that the choice governors
were faced with was one of do I want to improve the security of
my license or do I want a less-secure license. That is
ridiculous. There is no governor who faced that choice with
regard to these extensions.
Every governor wants a secure license. Every governor works
towards a secure license. Every governor wants to fight
identity theft. The choice was, we don't know what REAL ID is,
we don't know what we are being asked to sign up for, we have
some serious questions, and yet we are asked to sign on the
dotted line that we want an extension and possibly imply that
we are going to meet you at the end of the day when we don't
know what the house is going to look like that supposedly you
are building.
And the retaliation was against our citizens, governors'
own citizens who might have to go to the airport and not be
able to use their ID to get to Walt Disney, take the family
out, and that, at the end of the day, was no choice at all. And
so the governors came in, some with great reluctance, and
eventually an extension was given, and you heard some of the
dance that both DHS and States went through to get to that
point.
The other part would be funding.
Senator Voinovich. By the way, I will never forget on
Christmas Day getting a call, and the reason they were able to
call me was that my telephone number is published in the church
bulletin. [Laughter.]
The caller said ``I am at the airport with my family.'' I
am not sure where they were going to, but it was for mom and
dad's fiftieth anniversary and they couldn't get the baby to go
because they didn't have a birth certificate for her and the
office were closed. And I had to spend probably an hour on the
phone back and forth and finally got TSA to get involved and
they let the baby go and then they had to fax the birth
certificate down to wherever they went to so the baby could get
back in the country. But that is the kind of stuff that goes
on.
Mr. Quam. Senator, REAL ID is one of those few laws that
actually comes out of Washington where at the end of the day
every citizen is actually going to know the term REAL ID. As
this thing moves forward, this is going to be one of those that
everybody will have REAL ID on the mind as they go through
their DMVs or they go through the airport, depending on how
this plays out. If they do it right, we will be OK. If we
don't, then there is going to be some serious concerns.
With regard to the funding, States do not appreciate, and I
think the Subcommittee echoed it, this whole idea that through
SHSGP funds, hundreds of millions of dollars have been made
available. Nobody really believes it. What you really have is
$90 million that has been appropriated, $6 million that has
gone to one State to start a pilot project. I think the
Department of Homeland Security has actually used $1.3 million
to start its own program office and not one other dollar has
actually gone to States to help implement REAL ID, what States
are seeing out there is an unbuilt house, being asked to pick
up a tab and sign on the dotted line, not a dollar in the
coffers yet and wondering what is going ahead, and then asking
Congress if this is your priority, then shouldn't there be
money behind it to help States fund it?
And so it is one of tone. Collaboration and cooperation, as
you know, governors can work with an adversary type of
situation, which sometimes we face in REAL ID, isn't actually
going to get this done. So my biggest question would be that of
tone and whether or not we can change it to something more
cooperative.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Fredrickson.
Ms. Fredrickson. Thank you, Senator, for letting us have
this opportunity. I wanted to talk more about the privacy
issues and the concerns we have with REAL ID, and I think Mr.
Baker spent quite a bit of his testimony telling a story about
a woman who had been the victim of identity theft.
Senator Voinovich. From Madison, Ohio.
Ms. Fredrickson. From Ohio, exactly. It was Maureen
something.
I think Senator Tester asked the right question, which
wasn't really answered by Mr. Baker, which is about the fact
that the information that is on the machine-readable part of
that REAL ID is not encrypted. There is no requirement by the
DHS in the regulations that those kinds of requirements are
built into the REAL ID. And so Senator Tester asked Mr. Baker,
doesn't that mean that the woman from Ohio is actually going to
be much more subject to identity theft than she is under the
current system, and I think that is a real danger that we run
into.
DHS really kicked that to the States, I think, to develop
something called State security plans. Each State can develop a
different plan. And how does that protect the woman in Ohio if
another State has a plan that is not as secure as Ohio's and
her information is being accessed through this nationwide
database by that other State?
So there are some very serious questions that I think
certainly lead us at the ACLU and several of the other
panelists to implore you to go back to the negotiated
rulemaking process, have the different parties at the table,
the States, the governors, the privacy experts, the technology
experts, to really hash this out to make sure that the system
that is put in place actually protects our security because it
is our very strong belief that if privacy is compromised,
security is compromised. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. I think that, first of all, from a
practical point of view, if what you say is true, and I have no
reason to doubt it--I am not that familiar with all of these
various systems that they are putting in place. I think States
are going to be reluctant to go forward with it if they feel
that you have got a real privacy issue, and I think individuals
will be very reluctant to participate because of their
concerns.
Ms. Fredrickson. I think Senator Tester also asked about
the fact that this is unencrypted information and that when
somebody goes into a bar, for example, and they have to give
their ID, that bar can swipe the card and take the information
off and store it in a database, and we all know--we have seen
what happens with DoubleClick and all of these other companies.
Where we go, what we buy, how we spend our free time is very
valuable commercial information and the incentive to create
databases and track people and their habits through the REAL ID
card, I think is an inevitable fact of life if this issue is
not addressed.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Mr. Dow.
Mr. Dow. Yes, sir. I would like to shift gears to WHTI. One
of the things that is so critical is that we have botched
communications of WHTI implementation.
And the challenge we have got, we have to have some really
robust and coordinated communications, and my two colleagues at
DHS and the State Department earlier talked about each hiring a
unique and different PR firm to start sometime in a few months
to get the word out. Well, this takes more than PR. With WHTI,
we are changing a lifestyle, a culture, a tradition of how
people come to Ohio.
Maybe it was glossed over, but when you asked about Cedar
Point, you have 500,000 Canadians that come to Ohio. Sixty
percent do not have a Canadian passport. My math says that is
300,000 people that may not come to Ohio and Cedar Point and no
communication is out there.
So we are pushing very importantly, that is before the
Senate right now, S. 1661--the Travel Promotion Act. New
security is not a one-time occurrence. We have got an ongoing
change of life here that we have to communicate. This is public
diplomacy. This is how America is seen, and we are going to be
seen as the hard-handed folks that don't want Canadians, as we
are being seen around the world as the hard-handed folks that
don't want anyone else from around the world. That is a
problem.
Senator Voinovich. I understand that fully. I was the main
sponsor of the visa waiver legislation, and we didn't get
really what we wanted on that, but it is a step forward. But
you are right. From a public diplomacy point of view, things
are very bad. From that point of view, public relations, public
diplomacy, it is bad, but it is also, as you point out, very
bad for our economy.
I mean, one of my goals as Governor of Ohio was to increase
travel and tourism. It is a big industry. And to not take that
into consideration and to not get the information out there and
just to leave it to public relations, there should be a joint
effort by your organization and the government to figure out
how we are going to get that information out to the best of our
ability, using your resources and the government's.
Mr. Dow. And that is the opportunity we will have with the
Travel Promotion Act because we use the best of private with
public oversight, and that is important.
Senator Voinovich. You heard my remarks about the whole
Department of Homeland Security, and that is our fault. It is
very interesting that when we were going through that, I said,
you ought to ask the people who are going to do the job how
they think they best should be organized, and we said, no, we
are smarter than they are. And I said that when the screw-ups
happen, we will blame them instead of taking the responsibility
ourselves, and we are starting to see part of that, and of
course, it is always their fault. But we haven't got clean
hands in this, either, in terms of the way this organization
came together, and we don't have clean hands in terms of
allocating resources to the various agencies.
I am just doing a survey right now of all the places, all
the Departments in the Federal Government where we have asked
people to do jobs and we have not given them the resources to
get the job done. And any of you that have been in business or
government, if you ask somebody to do a job and you don't give
them the resources to get the job done, then basically what you
tell them is you don't think very much of what you are asking
them to do.
So this is not only the administrative side, but also the
legislative. We have a big responsibility here and that is why
I am interested in your suggestions that we had better pull
this thing down, look at it, start all over again, touch the
bases so we will be far better off than just to continue
meandering down this stream. You think if we do, this thing is
going to continue to explode here, there, and everywhere.
Mr. Dow. When you talked about resources, my wife and I
returned from Mexico 2 weeks ago into Houston and there are 40
booths to process people and 22 of the 40 had ``closed'' signs
up. Just multiply this by 40 million Canadian travelers, by the
billion dollars coming across the border every day, and it
dwarfs anything we have seen coming across the air borders
where we are understaffed right now.
Senator Voinovich. That is why we are going to get them in.
Mr. Amador.
Mr. Amador. Yes, thank you. I would just follow with some
of the things that were said earlier. One of the issues we have
is transparency, obviously, and communication. The tone that
they take translates into the actions that they are taking, as
well. When they use hyperbole and they talk about, well, it was
time to stop letting people come in with a smile, that was
never what we were asking for. That is not what many Senators
who wrote to Chertoff were calling for. We had some very good
solutions to the issue that we presented. The same thing with
other issues with homeland security, whether it is a fence on
the Southern border or other issues.
And to rely as a PR campaign on negative publicity from the
media as the way of getting the word out, we don't think that
is the way to go because it does damage not only our tourism
and our view abroad, but businesses of people that might be
thinking of investing in the United States versus someplace
else. So those are the kind of things that need to improve
communication and transparency and it doesn't seem that it is
taking place right now.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the Chamber, I think, could do a
better job of capturing the total amount of exchange between
the United States and Canada, the number of trips. As I
mentioned, I think back when I was Chairman of the National
Governors Association, we set up a new thing with Canada,
because for 36 of us, they were our No. 1 trading partner, and
so we tried to find ways that we could enhance the relationship
between Canada and the United States. I think we need to
capture the amount of money that it is costing our respective
economies because of this lack of movement back and forth and
how it can even become worse with some of the things that we
are talking about doing.
Mr. Amador. And one of the reports is a joint report with
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and another one, so we are
trying to capture that data. GAO is working on a report and we
have asked DHS to wait until all these economic data start
coming out because even when they did their airfare analysis,
they only really looked at tourism and we said, what is the
cost to the economy from the commerce being delayed and from
all these things?
And again, with the changes and reasonable talk going back,
it seems that all of the changes, and Mr. Dow knows from all
the battles that we have fought, have to come from Congress. It
seems that we tell them, you are not ready, you should do it
later, maybe in June 2009, and they wait for Congress to
mandate it before moving the deadline. And it seems that is
happening with everything else, as well.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Cope, you are clean-up.
Ms. Cope. Thank you, Senator. Well, first off, I think the
first panel completely glossed over the privacy concerns
related to the enhanced drivers' licenses and the passport
card. But with that being said, they also completely glossed
over the cost issue. This hearing has focused a lot on the
costs of both programs and one thing they didn't address is
that the passport card and enhanced driver's license programs,
are going to mandate a third reader system.
So at this point, if these programs move forward, we are
going to have three different infra reader structures at our
land borders and that just seems inefficient and probably a
waste of money, as well. The Trusted Traveler programs require
one type of infrastructure. The electronic passport requires a
second type of reader and technical infrastructure. And then
now the passport card and the enhanced driver's license will
require yet a third reader infrastructure.
Senator Voinovich. So it is not only the manpower, but it
is the technology and the quality of the technology and then
how are we kind of making it seamless so that we don't have
three different systems that we are going to have to put up and
train people to operate.
Does anyone else want to make another comment? I only can
hear from the witnesses, sir. Yes, Ms. Fredrickson?
Ms. Fredrickson. I just wanted to point out, there was a
really terrific op-ed by Governor Sanford of South Carolina
that was in the Greenville paper just a couple of days ago, and
I think one of the reasons that several of us up here have
urged you to go back to the negotiated rulemaking process that
Congress actually passed and then repealed shortly after REAL
ID is because, as Governor Sanford points out, steroid use in
baseball has now received more Congressional attention than
REAL ID.
We think Congress needs to go back, allow a negotiated
rulemaking process to go forward to allow some real thinking to
go into how to solve what are some very significant problems in
setting up a system like this. We think that having all the
stakeholders at the table can actually result in a much shorter
implementation time and a much better outcome than what REAL ID
envisions, where potentially, at DHS's best estimate, it will
reach the public by 2017 and cover the full population. That is
a really long window if this is really a security imperative.
Senator Voinovich. Well, thank you all for coming, and the
gentleman that wanted to say something, I will be glad to talk
to you after this meeting.
Folks, I don't know what your schedule is, but Senator
Akaka said he is on his way back. I thought he wasn't coming
back. So why don't you stay, please. I would appreciate it.
We will stand in recess until Senator Akaka gets back.
[Recess.]
Senator Akaka [presiding]. This Subcommittee hearing will
be in order. Thank you all for waiting.
Representative Stone, I am pleased to see that NCSL
supports my bill, S. 717, to repeal the REAL ID Act and
reinstate the negotiated rulemaking process for the
Intelligence Reform Act. Since some of NCSL's recommendations
were incorporated into the REAL ID regulations, I would like to
hear what you believe to be the benefits of repealing REAL ID
and reinstating the negotiated rulemaking process. Would it
ensure secure drivers' licenses faster than REAL ID?
Ms. Stone. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
the opportunity to be with you here today and for having this
hearing.
NCSL does see benefits to returning to the negotiated
rulemaking process. We believe that it would move from a top-
down, what we perceive as a coercive process, to a more
collaborative process that would bring all interested
stakeholders to the table. We believe that it would produce
more and better buy-in from State policy makers, and we think
that is key because it is the State policy makers who will deal
with all of the implications and all of the results when it is
finally implemented.
It provides an opportunity to address needed fixes that
have not been addressed so far in the final rule, such as
exempting populations as I discussed in my remarks, folks who
already hold passports, folks who hold military IDs, folks who
actually have Federal IDs.
It also provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to
negotiate the cost implications, and NCSL's message on REAL ID
has been very consistent. Fix and fund, and certainly the cost
is every bit as important to us as fixing the actual rules. It
also allows the process to accommodate State experiences, best
practices, and existing business practices and systems.
So even though we have had an opportunity during the
rulemaking process to be heard, we wish we had had that
opportunity prior. We have appreciated that, but we do not
think that the process is complete by any means and we would
like to be able to participate as it moves forward.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your response.
Mr. Amador, if States reject REAL ID, its citizens cannot
enter Federal buildings because they do not have a REAL ID
card. This will affect their access to private entities in
addition to Federal agencies. For example, the DC Chamber of
Commerce Visitor Information Center is located in the Ronald
Reagan Building, which houses Federal agencies. What will the
DC Chamber of Commerce and other businesses across the Nation
do if they are located in Federal buildings and individuals do
not have REAL ID cards?
Mr. Amador. Well, it is really a question for--and it was
asked during the previous panel. What are you going to do for
those individuals that do not have a REAL ID? And we are still
waiting for that answer. It is the same idea--they have so many
requirements and it is not clear how they interact with each
other. They used to call it a passcard. They themselves chose
to call it a passport card and they said it is like a passport
card unless you want to use it to get on a plane. Well, then it
is not a passport, it is a different card. It is something
else. They were asked whether the passport card would be able
to be used as a REAL ID to get into buildings and they were
like they never thought about it.
So what other IDs are they going to accept to be able to go
into a Federal building and how secure are these IDs going to
be if it is not a REAL ID? We need to see what answers they
come up with. I think they are complicating themselves by
continuing to create more and more programs that don't
necessarily interact with each other. But again, we are just
trying to give them recommendations. We are not telling them
how to do their job. But it is confusing, the more IDs and the
more programs that they create instead of working together to
make these things easier for everyone.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Quam, as you know, the final
regulations for REAL ID reduced the cost to States from $14
billion to $4 billion. While the delayed implementation time
line helped reduce the cost, the Department made several
assumptions that lowered the cost estimate, including that not
everyone will want a REAL ID card.
You mentioned in your testimony some skepticism about the
cost estimate for the States to implement REAL ID. What do you
think the real costs to the States will be?
Mr. Quam. I think the likelihood is that it is actually
higher than $4 billion. The Office of Management and Budget
used some of the information that was developed by States early
on when States had to try to establish a baseline for what this
could cost. Certainly a lot of it is bringing people through
the actual physical plant. The faster you have to bring 245
million people in, the more draw-down there is going to be on
your resources, on overtime, on your physical buildings. And so
the 10-year time line that has been given was a recommendation
of both NGA and NCSL and AAMVA as a way to help monitor and
manage the line. And so there is some savings there. There is
also savings in the flexibility to choose the type of security
for your card.
What is missing, again, is the fact that they have a new
assumption that one out of every four drivers will choose not
to get a REAL ID. The problem with that assumption is if REAL
ID comes online and now you need it for a Federal building and
you need it for an airport and you need it to get benefits and
you need it maybe to get across the border and it fits all
these different definitions, this is a card now that you can't
do without. And so rather than one in four people not having
it, I think everybody will actually want it, and so just
reducing your price by 25 percent, I think we would all love to
be able to do that. I don't think it actually comes to
fruition.
The other one, however, and a real troubling one for a lot
of governors, is with all of these databases, there is an
assumption that a lot of them will be paid for by fees, that
with every query, ask if thy are to check with DHS, there is
going to be some price tag attached to it. We do not know what
those price tags are. I talked about the SAVE system, and this
is through DHS. The minimum amount is 50 cents per query. You
have 245 million drivers' licenses. Take half of that and all
of a sudden, there is $100 million just for that one database.
We have five that have to be queried for every single license.
Having those costs not part of those cost estimates, I
think raises suspicion for governors. I think it should raise
suspicion for the Department of Homeland Security and Congress.
We need some hard numbers so that we know what the tab is that
States are being asked to pick up. Governors, just like NCSL,
are on a fix and fund policy. Those cannot be separated. A
workable regulation with no funding does not work. Total
funding with unworkable regulations doesn't work. They have to
go together. Only if they go together do I think REAL ID can
get done.
Senator Akaka. Thank you so much for your response.
Mr. Dow and Mr. Amador, most land border crossings were
built at a time when there was a lower volume of travel and
less recognition of the need for security. According to GAO,
CBP estimates that $4 billion in infrastructure improvements at
ports of entry are needed. In addition to increasing CBP
staffing, do you believe that investments in infrastructure at
ports of entry could help with the problems you highlighted?
Mr. Dow.
Mr. Dow. Chairman Akaka, I do believe that we have a crisis
on staffing and on the pinch point of going through these
physical areas. If you look at the land crossings or even if
you look at something as simple as Dulles Airport, that it is
so antiquated for the volume we are trying to pull through,
just think of all the Chinese that will be traveling here.
And also, the other thing is the confusion factor that we
have had among very educated, knowledgeable people in this room
about what is going to happen with WHTI. Think of the poor
Canadian or the poor U.S. citizen who has no idea about WHTI.
That is why we need a comprehensive communications plan, and I
want to just thank you as I close for your support of the
Travel Promotion Act. You realize how important it is to our
country, and to your State. Your colleague and friend, Mayor
Hannemann, has been a good friend also on this with all the
mayors and I appreciate that.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Amador.
Mr. Amador. Yes. As I said, it is in the written testimony
and also in the oral testimony, we are supporting a bill in the
House of Representatives called Putting Our Resources Towards
Security Act, and that bill authorizes $5 billion over 5 years
for the General Service Administration to address
infrastructure deficiencies at land ports of entry. I think
that will be a good start, together with increasing the
staffing so the booths will be open and the hours will be
extended. So we think that will be a good beginning. We would
encourage the introduction in the Senate and we will be happy
to talk to you and your staff about doing that.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Quam and Ms. Stone, while
both of your organizations have similar concerns with the REAL
ID Act, I am interested in your views with regard to WHTI,
specifically enhanced drivers' licenses. Do States have similar
concerns with EDLs as with REAL ID?
Mr. Quam. Let me start. With regard to WHTI, the governors'
position with regard to WHTI and any cross-border security
measures is that security and commerce can coexist and must
coexist, and that as DHS moves forward with any of these plans,
the biggest mistake that it could make is not to work with the
States who are on those borders to find a program that works
for its citizens, because it knows--I think Senator Collins did
an excellent job of talking about the golf course. That is a
local issue. Only local officials are going to know that issue
and find a way to solve it. And so you have really got to work
with local officials, State, and local officials, when devising
those programs.
With regard to the enhanced driver's license, I know the
Washington State project has had some success in working with
DHS to get that off the ground. They have a great interest in
having that program in place because of all the activity that
happens on their border and with regards to the upcoming
Olympics. Several other States are looking at that issue and
seeing, does an enhanced driver's license make sense for their
States?
The important thing is that becomes a State decision. I
think as Ms. Stone said, there cannot be a cookie cutter
approach, that each State is a bit different. And so I think
States are going to want to take the best practices from some
of the others. They will have concerns on privacy that they
will want to address. They will have concerns on cost and
implementation. But if it is done at the State level, then it
is much more possible to get that balance between security and
commerce across the border.
Senator Akaka. Representative Stone.
Ms. Stone. Yes. Thank you very much. Very good question. It
is our belief that DHS is actually using the economic impact of
WHTI on border communities especially to pressure the border
States into acting on EDLs. As we all know, the State of
Washington has recently concluded a Memorandum of Agreement
with DHS and they have launched the first EDL program. They
cannot take a cookie cutter approach because it will not work.
Every State's needs are different and we really are hopeful and
insist upon a collaborative process.
Probably the biggest problem for us with DHS on these
issues has been that they seem to bypass the legislature and
legislators when it comes to these issues and we are truly
stakeholders in these processes. We are the ones who ultimately
will fund anything. We are the ones that have to deal with the
privacy concerns. We are the ones who make the policies.
DHS has recently formed a working group with members from
the Governors Association, and we are delighted to see that
they are including them in a collaborative process. When we
approached DHS to participate in that same working group, we
heard a resounding no, and although we are delighted that they
are including the governors, we believe that as legislatures
and legislators, we are every bit as important to this process
as the governors are.
And so once again, our philosophy always has been, include
us as stakeholders. Give us a seat at the table and allow us to
participate in the process. It will ultimately result in better
buy-in and it will ultimately result in a partnership, which it
must be if we are going to be successful with providing the
kind of security that we believe we need to have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your response.
Ms. Stone. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Cope, you have written in great detail
about the problems with vicinity-read RFID chips. If DHS and
States could not use vicinity RFID, how else could travel
information be prepositioned?
Ms. Cope. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. As I touched upon
earlier, both Departments could use a machine-readable
technology that requires the card to actually make physical
contact with the reader, and those readers could be placed 20
or 30 or however many feet away from the CBP inspection booth
such that individuals either walking across the border or in a
car would have to have their cards scanned well in advance of
them actually being interviewed by the CBP officer. That would
allow the information to be pulled up on the CBP computers, and
be checked against various law enforcement and other terrorist
watch lists. And so the goal of prepositioning can still easily
be achieved with different technology that is more secure than
vicinity RFID.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Fredrickson, the ACLU has developed a
REAL ID scorecard, a list of potential problems that have been
identified with the REAL ID law by a variety of parties,
including privacy advocates and survivors of domestic violence.
I understand that many of these problems were identified prior
to or soon after the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Others were raised in numerous meetings between interested
parties and DHS since that time.
According to your scorecard, DHS has failed to fix most of
the problems you identified. Did DHS respond to any of these
unaddressed problems in the regulations, and if so, what was
the response?
Ms. Fredrickson. Well, I think if you look at our
scorecard, it is very lengthy. It identifies a very long list
of concerns. There were certainly areas where DHS took some
actions that made the regulations somewhat less problematic.
But I think I would actually tell you to look at the rest of
the list that is on the scorecard because there, the biggest
concerns that we had were left unaddressed, and in those areas,
DHS clearly failed to respond.
And I think I would go back to the discussion that we had
earlier about the privacy concerns, because for us as the ACLU,
that is obviously first and foremost and that is something that
DHS completely threw up its hands about, kicked it to the
States and said, develop your security plans. We are not going
to have any standards. And that will somehow protect Americans'
private information.
I think, again, I would go back to Mr. Baker's testimony
where he talked about the dangers of identity theft and having
insecure identification cards. Well, I would put to you that
the system that would come about through the REAL ID would be
much more prone to identity theft and to those dangers, to have
a vast nationwide database with very little thought put into
some kind of standards that would protect privacy.
And that is why we are very strong advocates for your bill,
S. 717, because we think we need to go back to the drawing
board. We need to get the partners back at the table. We need
to go through those kinds of concerns, because really, if you
don't protect privacy, you can't protect security.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. I want to thank all of you again
for being here today. Thank you for your statements and your
responses. As you know, the purpose of today's hearing was to
review the impact of the implementation of the REAL ID Act as
well as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. You have
certainly responded. Your participation has helped us
understand whether or not the Federal Government is prepared to
implement REAL ID and WHTI.
Unfortunately, the concerns I had coming into this hearing
have not been addressed. Privacy, funding, and overall planning
remain critical issues that need to be addressed for us to have
successful implementation of secure identification cards.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this a
reality and look forward to your participating in this, also.
The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for additional
statements or questions from our Members.
Again, I want to thank you very much for your patience.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
I would like to thank the witnesses for coming here today to
provide us with an update on the status of the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative and the REAL I.D.
Implementation of both the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and
the REAL I.D. has caused serious concern to many Members of the
Congress and their constituents.
When the REAL ID Act of 2005 passed the Senate, I voted in favor of
it. A driver's license has long been used for much more than just
proving that a person can legally drive a vehicle. A state driver's
license is the principal form of identification American's use to enter
federal buildings, fly on airplanes, and for any number of places proof
of identification is required.
When a document is this integral to our everyday lives, we need to
work together to make sure it is as secure as possible. As a matter of
fact, many of the 911 terrorists had driver's licenses they acquired
fraudulently. This allowed them to rent vehicles, open bank accounts,
and ultimately to fly on that fateful day.
I understand there are valid concerns surrounding the REAL ID, and
I hope we can work together to address those concerns. I believe the
Department of Homeland Security has been quite flexible in allowing
states an extension for implementation, and I commend the Department
for this.
I have two main concerns about implementation of REAL ID. The first
is the cost to states. I hope we in Congress can work on all possible
ways to aid states in the drastic costs associated with meeting the
REAL ID requirements.
I am also concerned that DHS has not executed sufficient public
outreach on the REAL ID. Many citizens have serious privacy concerns
about this, and although I believe the privacy of every American will
continue to be protected, I do not feel as though DHS has been able to
sufficiently get that point across. It is an important concern of the
American people, and I hope DHS will work hard to ensure they
understand that this is in no way intended as a national identification
card.
As many of you know, I have had serious concerns about the
implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, W.H.T.I.
Although I understand the importance of these new regulations, I
continue to be concerned about the effect they will have on travel and
trade with Canada.
Alaska is the only state in which residents must drive through
another country in order to reach another state. Many border
communities in Alaska rely heavily on travel to and from Canada on a
daily basis. As a matter of fact, if a resident of Haines, Alaska
wanted to drive to Anchorage, another city in their own state, they
would have to drive through Canada and re-enter Alaska.
I was pleased that Secretary Chertoff sent DHS staff to Alaska last
month to visit with some of our border communities about the new and
upcoming border document requirements.
It was very helpful to have DHS personnel there to answer questions
these communities had, and to listen to the unique aspects of these
communities that must be kept in mind when implementing new
requirements.
Many in Alaska do not have the correct information when it comes to
what is currently required at the border, and what will be required
once WHTI is fully implemented. Again, as with REAL ID, I am concerned
that DHS is not doing enough public outreach to these communities to
ensure they, and all Americans, understand exactly what is needed now
and what will be needed in the future.
I hope DHS will move forward with aggressive public outreach
campaigns so that we can avoid any delays or problems at our borders.
I am also concerned about another backlog for passports as the land
and sea implementation date nears.
As you know, the State Department suffered a severe backlog of
passport requests as the air implementation deadline neared. Some
waited 12 to 13 weeks for their passports, and travel, in some cases,
was impeded. So much so in fact, that passport requirements had to be
changed during the backlog to accommodate those who had applied for,
but had not yet received their passports.
Before air implementation, I was assured by the State Department
that they were well prepared for the increase in passport requests they
would receive. This was not the case. I hope the State Department is
better prepared this time to accommodate those requesting passports and
passcards.
Thanks you, and I look forward to your testimony today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2752.371