Apr04GovtReport

When President George Bush signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 into law on May 14, 2002, the U.S. travel industry faced the challenge of monitoring the implementation of several new safety procedures while advocating for the flow of legitimate tourist travel into the country. The travel industry was relieved when the original deadline (October 1, 2003) for visa waiver program travelers to possess a machine-readable passport was postponed by the State Department until later this year. However, the establishment of the new deadline reminded the industry that a much larger issue lurked in the months ahead.

Section 303 of the Border Security Act mandated that the Department of State and the Bureau of Consular Affairs “issue only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas, and other travel and entry documents that use biometric identifiers…beginning October 26, 2004.” Biometric identifiers are electronic scans of a physical feature, such as an eye, hand, fingerprint, or face. For a country to remain eligible for participation in the visa waiver program, its government is required to certify that it has a program to issue machine-readable, tamper-resistant passports incorporating biometric and authentication identifiers. This means that travelers from visa waiver program countries who possess nonbiometric passports issued on or after October 26, 2004, will be required to obtain a visa for travel to the United States.

The development of biometric technology for incorporation into passports is a process that was to have taken years. The Border Security Act required visa waiver countries to develop biometric passports in a matter of months. Of the 27 countries that participate in the visa waiver program, only three will have the capability to produce machine-readable, tamper-resistant passports with biometric identifiers by October 2004. The United Kingdom and Japan, the two largest tourism-generating visa waiver program countries, have indicated that they will not be capable of producing biometric passports until late 2005 or 2006.

For months travel industry organizations have stated their case to the Bush administration, seeking an extension of the October 26 deadline. But deadline extension is possible only through congressional action. IAAPA, in conjunction with numerous travel industry coalitions, has redirected its efforts to successfully educate members of Congress and their staffs on the need to extend the deadline.

The first opportunity for IAAPA and the travel industry to educate in a public forum came on January 28, 2004, when the House Select Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing to examine the progress of the US-VISIT program. At this oversight hearing, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty estimated that the deadline would increase demand for nonimmigrant visas to the United States to more than 5 million applications in 2005, or double the number that had applied last year. She testified that the large increase in demand for nonimmigrant visas, coupled with the inability of U.S. consulates overseas to hire new staff or expedite the interviewing process, would result in a significant delay in the visa issuance process.

Although she clearly illustrated the problems that U.S. consulates would endure overseas, and despite describing the difficulties that visa waiver countries have encountered with the development and production of biometric passports, Assistant Secretary of State Harty did not suggest that Congress consider an extension of the October 26 deadline. Harty could only identify some of the efforts that the State Department has made to help visa waiver countries satisfy a deadline that 24 of the 27 will not meet. The importance of maintaining the flow of legitimate tourist travel to the United States needed to be addressed.

“We fear [this deadline] will serve as a disincentive for tourist travel to the United States,” IAAPA president Clark Robinson advocated in testimony submitted for the official hearing record. He continued, “the [inability] of [U.S. consulates abroad] to process requests in a timely manner...will create an actual barrier for some international travelers and a perceived barrier for others. Fewer international visitors to the United States will result in less spending and job loss in the amusement industry across the country.” Robinson concluded his testimony by indicating that an extension of the biometric passport deadline by at least one year would “allow the seamless flow of legitimate travel into the United States to continue, while providing visa waiver program governments with the opportunity to successfully meet and comply with requirements mandated by the Border Security Act.”

The need to maintain the flow of legitimate travelers to U.S. parks and attractions is evident. Though the augmentation of physical security measures should be supported, the implementation of those security measures must take into account the economical health of the nation as well.