U.S. warns EU on fingerprints and RFID in passports
08/04/2005
In response to a letter from European Commission JLS DG Franco Franttini calling for a delay in the U.S. deadline for biometric passports, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner responds that the EU only has itself to blame for this situation. (See the coverage of the Frattini letter at the EU news site and the letter itself on the EU delegation to the US website).
That is, U.S. law requires all passport-issuing programmes of visitors from Visa Waiver Programme to include biometrics by October 2005; failing to comply would mean that all visitors from these countries would be required to apply for a visa to visit the U.S.
The EU is appealing for an extension to this deadline (which it successfully accomplished last year, extended the original deadline by one year from 2004 to 2005). Sensenbrenner responds that this is unlikely and in reality the EU is to blame for this situation because it insisted on using untested and complicated technologies such as RFID and additional biometrics like fingerprints.
We have archived the letter and the House Judiciary Committee press release below. It was originally posted at http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=473.
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) today sent a follow-up letter to the European Commission clarifying the effects of the U.S. law’s deadline for the issuance of passports with biometric features.
This letter was hand-delivered to European Union (EU) Ambassador John Bruton during a meeting today in Washington with Chairman Sensenbrenner.
Chairman Sensenbrenner commented, “I am working closely with the appropriate U.S. and foreign officials to clarify any misunderstanding about who is affected by the law’s deadline so we can move forward to ensure as many countries as possible in the Visa Waiver Program [VWP] meet the October 26, 2005 deadline. Travel, tourism, commerce, and most importantly, the security of law-abiding citizens, are all enhanced by the issuance of more secure travel documents.”
Chairman Sensenbrenner stated in his letter, “The October 26, 2005 deadline affects only the issuance of new passports by VWP countries. Any new passports issued by VWP countries after the deadline must have a biometric component in order to be accepted for visa-free travel to the U.S. However, all passports issued by VWP countries before the deadline will be accepted for visa-free travel to the U.S. until they expire, even where those expiration dates are years after the deadline is in effect.”
Chairman Sensenbrenner’s letter also points out U.S. law does not require a chip to store the biometric identifier; that requirement is a standard established by the EU for its Member states.
Chairman Sensenbrenner’s full letter is below.
April 7, 2005
His Excellency Luc Frieden
President of the European Council of Ministers
His Excellency Franco Frattini,
Vice President of the European Commission
Rue de la Loi 200 B1049
Brussels, Belgium
Dear President Frieden and Vice President Frattini:
On March 31, I sent you a letter to explain the difficulty of Congress passing a second extension of the biometric passport deadline for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) participants that was contained in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (the Act). In response, the Commission and the Council have made announcements that have confused the international press and consequently ill informed the public both in Europe and in the United States.
The October 26, 2005 deadline affects only the issuance of new passports by VWP countries. Any new passports issued by VWP countries after the deadline must have a biometric component in order to be accepted for visa-free travel to the U.S. However, all passports issued by VWP countries before the deadline will be accepted for visa-free travel to the U.S. until they expire, even where those expiration dates are years after the deadline is in effect.
Let me be clear: on September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by 19 terrorists who flew planes into American landmarks, resulting in the largest single terrorist-related loss of American life in our history. The leaders of that terrorist attack either lived in Europe as resident aliens prior to the attack or traveled directly from Europe en route to the execution of this awful assault. Subsequent arrests in Spain, combined with examination of the terrorists’ travels, have confirmed that the attacks were planned in Europe, in countries enjoying Visa Waiver Program status. Zacarias Moussaiou, the “20th terrorist” came to the U.S. from France with a French passport under the Visa Waiver Program. These are sobering facts, and strongly influenced the drafting of the Act which mandated the biometric passport requirement.
The Act specifically mandated that the government of each Visa Waiver Program country certify by October 26, 2004, that it has established a program to issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports that incorporate a biometric identifier that complies with standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Last year, at my initiative, the House and Senate acted to amend the Act, to provide an additional year to allow those countries affected to resolve legal and technical obstacles.
President Frieden and Vice President Frattini
April 7, 2005
Page Two
I am well aware that the ICAO was not prompt in establishing the standards for compliance. ICAO has also added a standard to address those nations desiring to incorporate an electronic chip as an identity confirming option, a technological advance that adds complexity to the inspection process. As your letter explained, the European Union has established an optional fingerprint standard as well as the mandatory ICAO facial biometric standard. While the added biometric element will strongly assist in confirming the identity of the passport holder, it further adds to the technical obstacles to completing the process and increases the cost of inspection infrastructure.
Unfortunately, incorporating chip technology has proven problematic in implementing viable methods of inspection at ports of entry. Further, there is a great deal of public concern that passport holders may have their identity “skimmed” by electronic devices operated remotely. The State Department has assured me that this skimming vulnerability will be addressed before our own new passport is issued. However, the skimming problem illustrates how adding technical complexity has become the engine of continuing delays. Previously unknown secondary-consequences of new technology should not further delay realizing the fundamental purpose of the requirement, which is to establish the identity of people entering this country and thereby reduce the risk of future foreign terrorist attacks.
The Border Security Act stipulated only that biometric identifiers and documents meet ICAO standards, and that the passport be “machine-readable.” Congress, in passing the Act, anticipated that ICAO would establish reasonable, cost-effective standards which relied upon existing technology. That the ICAO would become enmeshed in new and unproven technology, and that the EU should choose an elaborate and expensive path to meet the requirement has led to consequences that are regrettable, but not insurmountable. Belgium has been issuing a viable passport since 2004 that appears to fully comply with the Act’s requirements.
Visa Waiver Program countries have had since the spring of 2002, one year more than initially set, to move forward to produce passports meeting those requirements. Some VWP countries have acted promptly to initiate the necessary processes, while others delayed. In my view, much expense and public consternation could have been avoided by a less technically ambitious approach, one that simply met the terms of the Act as written.
Sincerely,
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
Chairman
FJS/bz
#### |
