S. HRG. 110–630 OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 2, 2008 Serial No. J–110–83 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC S. HRG. 110–630 OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 2, 2008 Serial No. J–110–83 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 45–594 PDF : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel (II) VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared statement .............................................................................................................. Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, prepared statement . Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... prepared statement .......................................................................................... Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 319 322 1 324 3 WITNESS Chertoff, Michael, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 6 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Michael Chertoff to questions submitted by Senators Grassley, Leahy, Feinstein, Specter, Schumer, Kennedy, Hatch, Biden, Durbin and Feingold ................................................................................................................ 48 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Director, and Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Office, Washington, D.C., statement and attachments ................................................................................................... Cason, James E., Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... Chertoff, Michael, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., statement .................................................................................................... Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, letter ..... Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, Hon. Jon Kyl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, and Hon. Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, joint letter .................................... Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Governor, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, letter .. Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania: February 15, 2008, letter to Secretary Chertoff ............................................. February 15, 2008, letter to Attorney General Mukasey .............................. February 28, 2008, letter to Secretary Chertoff ............................................. March 4, 2008, letter to His Excellency Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt ..................................................... Tohono O’odham Nation, Hon. Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman, Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................................................. 266 293 295 315 317 326 328 330 332 334 336 (III) VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 U.S. SENATE, JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Whitehouse, Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn. COMMITTEE ON THE OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman LEAHY. First off, I thank those who are here. I know it is a very busy time, and Senator Specter, who is on a whole lot of committees, is going to have to be leaving for another Committee. And I know people come in and out. I am glad you are here, and I thank Secretary Chertoff for being here. And it is an important part of our oversight responsibilities having him here. As I noted recently with respect to the publication of rules governing passport and entry requirements, I am worried about the Department’s record in how it has handled the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the REAL ID Act, naturalization backlogs, the resettlement of Iraqi refugees and asylum seekers, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Recently, President Bush used the fifth anniversary of the Department to speak about spreading freedom and liberty around the world, as he did, and I had applauded him at the time during his second inaugural address. But, accordingly, in order to protect the freedom and liberties of Americans, we have to adhere to the rule of law and honor America’s commitment to basic human rights. The first Secretary of the Department, Thomas Ridge, has acknowledged that waterboarding is torture. This administration will not even share with this oversight Committee its legal justifications for waterboarding and why the administration supports waterboarding and other practices that we would condemn if they were used against an American anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, we have sadly gone from the world’s human rights leader; now we find ourselves being lectured on human rights by the Pakistani and Chinese Governments. I mean, that puts us in a pretty bad position. (1) VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 2 Sixty-six people have died since 2004 while in the Department of Homeland Security’s custody, some for lack of medical care or from outright neglect. Now, we have told, and rightly so, other countries to be careful how they are holding people. I do not know how we can say we are adhering to our standards when we lose 66 people in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security alone. Imagine the outrage if an American citizen were held in immigration detention in another country and then he or she died for lack of basic medical care. When it takes a lawsuit to improve substandard detention conditions for children and families at an immigration detention facility in Texas, the U.S. Government is failing its basic commitments to human rights and the rule of law—again, things for which we would criticize other countries if they did. Now, I recognize that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch has worked with nongovernmental organizations to make improvements in family detention standards and detention standards for asylum seekers who are fleeing to America to escape persecution in other parts of the world. But as the Department increased its enforcement activities, I wish it had planned better. We have also seen that the administration has failed to live up to its promises to resettle Iraqis who have helped the United States in their home country. This problem is compounded by the Department’s inability to use the authority that Congress has given it to address the terrible effects of the material support bar and the related, overly broad definitions of ‘‘terrorist organizations.’’ The recent case of Saman Kareem Ahmad, now a language instructor for the U.S. Marines who has received commendations from General Petraeus for his service in Iraq, exemplifies these problems. He was granted a special visa to come to the United States, but then, even though he has commendations from General Petraeus, even though he works as a language instructor for the U.S. Marines, his green card application was denied by your Department, which said that the pro-American, anti-Saddam Hussein group, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, with which Mr. Ahmad served, was a terrorist organization. He is caught in an ‘‘Alice in Wonderland’’ trap that could very easily be solved if DHS wanted to. Now, here at home, of course, you are well aware of my concerns about the Department’s implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Department must now make good use of the time Congress has given to make sure that the implementation goes smoothly and to minimize disruption in Americans’ lives and in our relations with our good neighbors to the north and south. I also share the view of many on both sides of the aisle and across the country about the so-called REAL ID Act and its unfunded mandates for the States. If we are going to have a national ID card, we ought to at least make sure that somebody is paying for it, and not the States. Now, I agree that there are benefits to be gained by encouraging the States to make improvements in the identification that they issue. Everybody wants that. I do not believe that somebody at the border ought to be able to check several thousand different kinds of identification. But I share the view that far greater cooperation VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 3 would have been gained by partnering with the States, rather than imposing a costly unfunded Federal mandate. Bullying the States is not the answer, nor threatening their citizens’ rights to travel. And from Maine to Montana, States have said no. A Republican Congress rejected efforts toward comprehensive immigration reform and adopted the Secure Fence Act. My recollection is that their bill entrusted you with the power to ‘‘take all actions’’ you determine necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over our borders. The Department’s virtual fence pilot program, which was apparently designed without adequate consultation with the Border Patrol, simply does not work. The administration can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on things that sound great on paper, but if they do not work, we gain nothing. In fact, your Department has begun condemning the property of private citizens in Texas and Arizona who would prefer that you not construct a border wall on their property. And just yesterday, you announced that the Department has waived all environmental laws in areas across 470 miles of border lands. I wonder if you will speak out for sensible enforcement policies or defend the billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money being wasted in what seems to be a mean-spirited, costly effort, especially the landowners, some who say it is Big Government coming in and saying, ‘‘You are going to do it our way, and you have got nothing to say about it.’’ The border fence and the related actions scar not only our landscape but our legacy as a Nation of immigrants. Another example, of course, has resulted in the backlogs at the Citizenship and Immigration Services branch. You have told Congress that higher fees would bring faster and better services, and you now preside over citizenship application backlogs that could and should have been anticipated. These are applications from legal permanent residents and people who have followed the rules, but because there was incompetent Government planning, they cannot get through. I appreciate the recent efforts of Director Gonzalez and his hardworking staff, but I will be looking forward to see—you are the one in charge—if you are going to deal aggressively with this issue. What commitment to the Senate and the American people can you make? Can you assure those who applied for U.S. citizenship before March 31, 2008, that they are actually going to be able to get that citizenship in time to vote in this next election? Or is it going to be, as many have suggested, that there is an effort made to make sure they do not vote in the next election? Now, we want security. But we want a Federal Government that works and which respects the principles of federalism and the basic human rights and civil liberties that we all hold dear. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Specter? STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 4 Mr. Secretary, I begin by thanking you for your service and taking on this Department, one of the toughest in the Federal Government. You have a very distinguished record as U.S. Attorney, Assistant Attorney General, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, stepping over into this position, with a lot of problems, inevitable criticism, and I think you are doing a really outstanding job. I want to focus on a problem which I think is enormously serious, which has been significantly ignored under the radar, and that is the issue of illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes who remain on the streets of America committing more crimes because we cannot deport them because their country of origin will not take them back. The statistics are alarming. Estimated by your Department, between 300,000 and 450,000 removable criminal aliens are in Federal, State, or local custody. They are an enormous cost, but more importantly, they are a gigantic public safety problem, because after they have served their sentences and been ordered removed, the immigration officials can only detain them for 180 days unless there is a significant prospect of deportation. But if none, they are released onto the streets of America. In the past several months, I have visited a number of prisons in Pennsylvania: the State Institution at Camp Hill, outside Harrisburg; Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County; Luzerne County in the northeastern part of the State; Chester and suburban Philadelphia. And it has been a real eye opener on the issue of public safety and on the issue of cost. In Chester County, illustratively, it costs county officials $1,700,000 a year, and they are only compensated by the Federal Government, a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But the cost factor pales into insignificance on those who have been released back to the streets with the statistics showing they are recidivists, six, seven, eight repeat crimes on the average. There are a couple of things that can be done. You have the discretionary authority now to institute procedures so that the State Department will not grant visas to countries which do not accept back their criminals. I have introduced legislation which would make that mandatory. With all respect, I do not think there has been diligence by your Department in pursuing that option, but my legislation would make it mandatory. If another country wants to have visas and let their citizens come to the United States, let them take back their convicts. If they do not, we ought to deny them visas. The statistics show that there are an enormous number of individuals who are being kept here because their home countries will not take them back. I have also covered in my legislative initiative a proposal to restrict or cutoff foreign aid to countries. Egypt, for example, will not take back an inmate who has to be force-fed in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, at a cost estimated by prison officials at $250,000 last year. And I have written to President Mubarak of Egypt about that and would ask consent for a copy of that to be included in the record. Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, we have found that a Department of Justice survey last year showed that 40 percent of prisons VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 5 surveyed did not even ask inmates about their immigration status. Now, the issue of sanctuary, some sanctuary cities, has significance when you are talking about not asking a witness to a crime what their immigration status is because you do not want to discourage witnesses from coming forward to report crimes. So there is a justification, at least arguably, for that distinction. But there is no reason why there should not be a mandate for inmates in jail to be asked about their immigration status so that deportation can be initiated. In my visit to the Philadelphia correctional institution, I talked to a group of inmates, 66 in number, all outfitted in their green jackets. I started to explore with them their willingness on minor offenses to waive the complexities of return under the immigration laws, and a number of them said they would be willing to do so. The Federal laws authorize voluntary return to be considered in plea bargains, and I would ask you to take a look at what has been done at the Federal level. And your officials were with me, very cooperative, very helpful, but they had not explored that in the county prisons. But if someone is charged with a minor offense, it has to be up to the DA to make the decision not to prosecute in the court. But if they will return voluntarily, let’s get them out of the jails where they are very, very expensive. With respect to those who are released, I discussed with you informally a few moments ago the possibility of detaining them even after their sentences are concluded where there is evidence of their being violent criminals. It could be analogized to the Sexual Predators Act. But we ought to be exploring ways, even after sentences are concluded, where there is a real risk in returning them to the streets to figure out what might be done. And I would ask you now for the record what we discussed informally to have you seek an opinion from the Department of Justice as to what might be done. My red light is about to go on, and I want to raise one other subject with you, and that is the status of having workers in the United States to help on vital agricultural matters and other lines of work. There is a major story in the New York Times today about tomato growers in northeastern Pennsylvania who have given up on their crops, and I have heard that in other parts of my State and heard about it in other parts of the country. So that I do think the guest worker program and the availability of labor where we can regulate people coming in and going back is something that requires some immediate attention, as we need some immediate attention on the visa issues with the need for many skilled people—professionals, doctors, PhDs—who are willing to come to this country to perform vital services, and the visa quotas ought to be substantially expanded. There have been letters signed by many Members of the Senate on that subject. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask consent that my letters to Mr. Chertoff of February 15th and February 28th be included in the record with my request for a response as promptly as the Secretary can manage it. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Without objection, they will be. Mr. Secretary, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this matter will VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 6 be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Secretary CHERTOFF. I do. Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead, sir. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Specter, members of the Committee. It is good to see you. I look forward to dealing with the issues you have raised—not all in my opening statement. I have got a fuller statement which I request be accepted as part of the record of the hearing. [The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears as a submission for the record.] Secretary CHERTOFF. I was reminded, as I walked into the building this morning, that a year ago I was spending quite a bit of time up here, including quite a bit of time with members of this Committee, as we tried to wrestle with issues of immigration. And although I think we made some progress, we were not able to take the ball over the goal line, although I am confident that in the fullness of time, it actually will get over the goal line. But we do need to make a deposit for the American people on the issue of credibility on enforcement, and I hope that as we do that, we can continue to look at the broader picture with respect to immigration reform so that we can reconcile our desire for security, the economic needs that Senator Specter alluded to in discussing some of the problem that our agricultural workers are having, and also to have a system that is humane but that respects the rule of law, which I think the American people care deeply about. We are continuing to move forward using the existing laws with respect to security, and we have also put into place some measures which I am hoping will at least make the existing temporary worker programs a little bit more user friendly, and I am happy to get into those. To give just a brief oral summary of where we are, let me begin with the border itself. We currently have approximately 310 miles of border fencing constructed. That is about 170 miles of pedestrian fencing and 140 miles of vehicle fencing. We are on track to reach our goal of 670 miles combined by the end of this calendar year. That would be 370 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of vehicle fence, depending upon what is appropriate at a particular location on the border. In fiscal year 2005, we had 11,264 Border Patrol. Currently, we have 15,852 Border Patrol. That is an increase of 4,500, you know, in less than 3 years, which I think is a very dramatic increase and one which I am happy to say has not been at the cost of quality. We had a group of former Border Patrol agents come in and look at our training program, and they have indicated it is as good as or better than it has ever been in the past. So we are on track to hit our goal at the end of this year of over 18,000 Border Patrol. With respect to technology—and, again, I am happy to get into this with more detail—we have actually made enormous progress with technology. The P–28 prototype, which we deployed in 28 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 7 miles of Tucson Sector, contrary to some of the news articles, did actually work and does work. It is currently operational. It has led to the apprehension of over 2,500 illegal aliens. We need to take it to what I call 2.0 to make it more optimal, but it works, and it was made to work within the original budget. In fact, it wound up costing us a little bit less money than we budgeted for it because we got a credit on a couple of items that we ultimately decided were not performing and we did not need. But in addition to that, I want to emphasize what else we are doing with technology. We have four unmanned aerial vehicles. We will have by the end of this year 40—that is, 4–0—mobile radar systems called ‘‘mobile surveillance systems’’ deployed all across the border. We have 7,500 ground sensors, and we will have another 2,500 this fiscal year, including 1,500 for the Northern border, so that the virtual fencing element of this is, in fact, progressing and it is, in fact, producing real value. At the ports of entry, as you said, Mr. Chairman, we have the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative now due to come into effect in June of 2009. We have in the meantime narrowed the number of documents that will be accepted at the border from 8,000 to about 20 in order to eliminate the problem of people coming in literally with documents that are not worth the paper they are printed on. We have also eliminated oral declarations at the border, and one example of how this works occurred 2 weeks ago in Buffalo when an individual presented a Colorado driver’s license, tried to make an oral claim of U.S. citizenship, was put into secondary because he did not have proof of citizenship; and ultimately, after we did a fingerprint search, we discovered he was not an American citizen. He had previously been removed from the country, and he had been denied entry in Mexico. This is exactly what we wanted to do, to catch this kind of individual, and literally every week, maybe as much as every day, we are catching people using this type of procedure at the ports of entry. Now, the good news on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is the following: Currently, we have deployed at every port of entry a machine that will read the documents that will be required in June 2009. Those are currently deployed. We have the ability right now to read passports at the border using the machine-readable zone at all of our land ports of entry, as well as, of course, at our airports and seaports. There will also be an alternative reading device which will be able to read the RFID chip, which will actually speed up the flow across the border and answer one of the persistent complaints we get about long lines. We have awarded the contract for the readers. We will begin deploying the readers this summer. By next spring we will have readers for the RFID fully deployed and operational at the top 39 ports in the country, covering approximately 95 percent of the traffic. So we will be well underway to have this fully implemented in advance of June 2009. In addition, besides the passports themselves, besides the Pass Card, which the State Department is going to be issuing this spring, we have negotiated with a number of States to improve enhanced drivers’ licenses that will also meet the requirements of the VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 8 Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The State of Washington is already issuing the licenses; 6,500 have been issued, and about 18,000 people queued up in order to be interviewed to get the licenses. New York is working on its business plan to do it. Vermont is working on its business plan to do it. Michigan has just approved legislation to do it. And Arizona is working on it. And although we are not making States do this, it is certainly a convenience and an expense saver for the citizens, and we are encouraging more States to do this. On interior enforcement, we have see dramatic increases across the board in our capability and our results. Deportations, we went up from 2004 where there were 173,000 to last year where there were 283,000. Fugitive arrests went up from 6,500 in 2004 to 30,000 last year. Work-site criminal arrests went up dramatically. Work-site administrative arrests went up dramatically, and removal of criminal aliens also doubled—more than doubled between 2004 and 2007. So we are making progress in these areas as well. E-Verify, our system for employers to verify that their workers are, in fact, using legitimate Social Security numbers that match the names. We have been getting 1,000 employers joining every week. We now have over 58,000 employers participating in the program. Ninety-three percent of employees who submit to the process are instantly verified and approved. Seven percent are not. But when you look at what happens with the 7 percent, the vast majority of those never contest the fact that they do not have a legitimate number. They simply leave. We have 1 percent contesting, and those, of course, get resolved and people can be hired. This program works. It does, however, need to be reauthorized at the end of this year, and we are going to be asking Congress to do that. Our temporary worker program, we are looking forward to a streamlined H–2A program. I am well aware of the fact that our H–2B program needs to be—the cap needs to be extended, and we are working with Congress in order to do that. Finally, I know I will get into many of these issues in questions, but let me address two things that you raised, Mr. Chairman. First, with respect to Mr. Ahmad, the translator, I waived the objection to his getting a green card yesterday, so that—we are out of ‘‘Alice in Wonderland,’’ and he is now on track to getting a green card. And, finally, we have stepped up the tempo of our naturalization of people who apply for green cards. Our target this year will be over a million. This will be the largest number of people that have been naturalized, as far as I know, in history—certainly more than in the past 2 years—and we are doing it without compromising the vetting process to make sure that we do not have a repeat of the debacle in 1996 with the Citizenship USA program. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and thank you for what you said about Mr. Ahmad. You know, it is interesting this happened the day before the hearing and after a major review in the Washington Post. The man lost his entire family in the chemical gas attacks unleashed by Saddam Hussein in Kurdistan in 1988, 20 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 9 years ago, and instructing U.S. Marines in Arabic language and culture at Quantico, General Petraeus, as I said, commended him. Why did it take so long? I mean, is each one of these cases going to require a major story in the Washington Post or other major newspaper and a congressional hearing before they get resolved? Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, as you know, until last year, when I think as part of the omnibus bill, when we were given the flexibility with respect to—broader flexibility with respect to these organizations to waive the material support provision, until then we were bound by law with respect to these cases. After the new legislation was enacted, instruction and guidance went out, and we are now freezing action on all the people who might be eligible for a waiver who are similarly situated so that we can review and make the individualized determinations. Chairman LEAHY. Is it coincidence that his was granted yesterday, the day before this hearing? Is that just coincidence? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think what happened—no. It is not the hearing that did it. When I saw the piece in the paper, I raised the question about why this was not included in the hold order that had gone out, and apparently, the hold order went out after the rejection of this particular individual had occurred. So I asked that we go back retroactively and make sure we were not losing people because of an artifact of time. Chairman LEAHY. OK. So we had the newspaper article, went back and did it. I would think that would ring some bells in your Department that maybe if reporters can find out where something has not been done right and find out that easily, why can’t we? Secretary CHERTOFF. And they have done that. They have gone back now, and we have frozen the people who are eligible, and we will make the appropriate individualized determination. Chairman LEAHY. Now, the other thing I mentioned earlier, the backlog of the citizenship applications at USCIS, it has been widely reported, it is well known. When you asked for a fee increase, which we granted, the reason for giving that, for the Congress to allow for that increase in fee or tax or whatever you want to call it, you promised an average processing time of 5 months. Now we are told it is going to be 14 to 15 months. And we gave you extra money to get a 5-month return. Now we get 14 to 15 months. And thousands, and maybe tens of thousands—some say hundreds of thousands—who applied in time so that they might be able to vote and participate as citizens—you can see where this is going. A lot of people are wondering whether—they have followed the rules. They have done everything that they have been told in this great country they want to be in so they can vote and everything else. But even though we are going to charge more and all that, sorry, we cannot get around to this until after this Presidential election, the first one in years—decades, really—where you have no incumbent running. Can you say that those who followed the rules, that have a naturalization application that was filed by March 31st, just 2 days ago, those applicants will be processed and qualified to vote, qualified to be naturalized as citizens in time to register to vote before the November elections? VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 10 Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me tell you what I can say. First of all, just to give you an idea of— Chairman LEAHY. Is that answer a no, you cannot— Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think I can tell you there is a particular date, partly because I cannot tell you whether any particular individual will have a problem in the background check. They may not qualify, or there may be a— Chairman LEAHY. Assuming you have a qualified person. Secretary CHERTOFF. I can tell you that we have reduced the wait time. I can tell you we will—a record number of people will qualify. It will be over million, is our current estimation, which is far more than in any prior year. But what I cannot— Chairman LEAHY. You are also charging far more than you ever did in any previous year in history. Secretary CHERTOFF. And the money is going to hire additional adjudicators and people to do the work that has to be done. Chairman LEAHY. Well, how many of the individuals who did apply before March 31st will not be naturalized by September 30th? Secretary CHERTOFF. I cannot—I don’t—the statistics I have don’t fit within that categorization. I have them a completely different way. Chairman LEAHY. Would it be thousands? Tens of thousands? Secretary CHERTOFF. I cannot—I don’t want to guess. Let me tell you— Chairman LEAHY. Can you get us the answer? Secretary CHERTOFF. Pardon? Chairman LEAHY. Can you get us the answer? Secretary CHERTOFF. It may be difficult to give you anything other than a rough estimate, but I can give you some information which I do have with me. Chairman LEAHY. Even a rough estimate, can you give us that? Secretary CHERTOFF. I can tell you that we will have—we are targeted, we expect to have over a million naturalized by the end of this fiscal year. That will be about 30 percent more than we did the prior year and 30 percent more than we did the year before that. So it will be a record number that are naturalized. Chairman LEAHY. Well, with the record high price that they are paying and the record high price which was put in at your request so they could get them through, it still appears—and feel free to go back and tell me if I am wrong on this—that tens of thousands, maybe even more, are going to be precluded from a chance to vote in the Presidential election. Secretary CHERTOFF. There may be a significant number that do not—that have applied as of this date that do not make it through. I mean, we are talking about 6 months. I do not think under the best of circumstances we ever guaranteed that we could process people in 6 months, even before the surge. And, of course, the surge in applications, the doubling in applications, created a lot more stress on— Chairman LEAHY. Try to give us some numbers, because I don’t mean to be cynical, but I am concerned that some of them are not going to be able to vote because—well, they will get through some very quickly after the Presidential election, not before. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 11 Let me ask you, you— Secretary CHERTOFF. I just—I would not like to let that linger in the air. We are going to be able to naturalize in record numbers, which I think is a powerful demonstration of good faith. At the same time, I do have to also recognize that 10 years ago there was a blistering IG report relating to the 1996 naturalizations which were riddled with fraud and misconduct. We are not going to repeat that either. So we are going to be secure and we are going to— Chairman LEAHY. My time is nearly up, but I want to ask you, on REAL ID, the unfunded mandate put on the States, why not repeal that and return to negotiated rulemaking with the States? I hear on the one hand the great speeches from Members of Congress of both parties that we just do not like these unfunded mandates on the States, but here is a huge, huge one; some say it can go into the billions of dollars. We still have the question of whether your computers that you have talked about that are going to be in place can even talk to the State’s computers, which will also be there, which has been a huge financial problem trying to work out. Why not just negotiate this for the States instead of saying, here, Big Daddy in Washington knows a lot better than you and here is what it is going to be? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, as I know you know, this was not my decision. This was a congressional decision. Chairman LEAHY. No, but that is why I am saying, why not just have the Congress repeal it and go to a negotiated—would you like that better? Secretary CHERTOFF. I would say that we have actually, in effect, done the negotiation. We have spent an enormous amount of time negotiating with the States. As a consequence of that, we have reduced the cost by three-quarters. It is now— Chairman LEAHY. The States still have to pay it. Secretary CHERTOFF. That is right. The States still have to pay it— Chairman LEAHY. It is still an unfunded mandate. Secretary CHERTOFF.—although we do have some grant money available. Now, we are estimating it is about $8 a license. I am quite sure that I could predict with confidence that the States will come back to the Federal Government and maybe ask for more money, and that will be an issue to be dealt with in the appropriations process. Chairman LEAHY. Yes, but there is nothing in the President’s budget for it. Secretary CHERTOFF. There is some money in the President’s— Chairman LEAHY. $80 million, which would not even begin to touch this. We are talking about billions of dollars. Secretary CHERTOFF. There is some money in the President’s budget for this. Also, given the fact that it is about $8 a license, it is obviously also a subject to be recaptured through fees. Certainly that reflects only a fraction of what I pay when I renew my license. So I understand there is always a financial issue here, and I respect the fact that there is disagreement about it. But I do want to say we have done a lot of negotiation with the States to address VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 12 their concerns, and I think we are so far along the road to getting this done that I think we are better served, you know, continuing to address the outstanding issues, but moving forward with speed. Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe—and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President? Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen. Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you. Senator Specter? Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, do you know to what extent existing law is being implemented which authorizes on notice by you to the Secretary of State that visas will be denied to citizens of nations which refuse to accept repatriation of these convicted illegal aliens? Secretary CHERTOFF. I know we have used it on a couple of occasions, and it— Senator SPECTER. A couple of occasions? Would you take a look at that procedure and see if it can be implemented to put some muscle into the requirement that these nations take back their— Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator SPECTER. How about the legislation which I have introduced which would make it mandatory? Would you object to that? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that, you know, there are probably foreign policy issues that suggest that a mandatory rule might be a little bit— Senator SPECTER. Well, let’s examine those foreign policy issues. Why? Why shouldn’t—when we have somebody who has been convicted of a crime, many crimes of violence, and they are on the streets of the United States, the most Immigration can hold them is 180 days, and they are back on the streets, they have a very high recidivism rate, an average of six to eight repeat crimes, what foreign policy considerations override the public safety? Secretary CHERTOFF. I mean, I agree with you. I think that countries ought to take their people back. And I should say most countries do, so it is not a widespread problem. There are some that do not. I always say that an automatic rule that says if you do not take somebody back you lose your visas might be regarded by the President as a— Senator SPECTER. OK, we will withhold on an automatic rule and give you a chance to use it on a discretionary basis. Secretary CHERTOFF. But I do think—and we have used— VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 13 Senator SPECTER. Would you report back to this Committee in 3 months and tell us how well you are using the existing authority you have to, in effect, compel countries to take back these convicts on pain of not having visas issued? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator SPECTER. How about the point of denying foreign aid to countries which do not take back their convicts? I know there, again, you have foreign policy considerations, and these are delicate matters. But how do we get some teeth in the approach that these countries ought to take back these criminals? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that actually the visa has proven in the past to be pretty effective leverage. I can think of a couple of instances where it did break a logjam. I do need to make one point clear, though. There are some times—there are two problems that arise when we try to send people back. One is if the country does not want to take them back, but the second problem that arises is sometimes the individual will claim that if we send them back, they are going to be tortured, and then we have a treaty problem. And some of the worst instances of people that we have essentially been stuck with are people that we cannot send back because our own courts say if you send them back, they may be tortured and, therefore— Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, I accept that as a limitation if there is an inquiry made and real factual justification. There are, however, some in that category who ought to be sent back at least under an exception which is possible to the international covenant. Legislation implementing Article 3 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture says that there can be an exception to that if a regulation is adopted that the aliens are security risks, such as terrorists or those who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. They are not entitled to that protection. But that cannot be done under international law unless a regulation is adopted by your Department. Canada has such a regulation. Canada has a good record on human rights. But your Department has not adopted that regulation. Would you take a look at that— Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. Senator SPECTER.—and report back within 3 months whether you have adopted it? Because at least that exception, I think, ought to be utilized. Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with that. Yes, we will definitely look at that. Senator SPECTER. Moving now to the question of detention of these dangerous people, going back to the proposition that once somebody has served their sentence and been ordered removed, Immigration can detain them for only 180 days unless there is a significant prospect of repatriation in the reasonably forseesable future, and if not, they have to be released, what could be done to detain these individuals by analogy to the predatory sexual offender? You and I have discussed and I mentioned in my opening statement that you will seek an opinion from the Department of Justice as to what we could legislate on there. But what is your thinking? First of all, do you believe that we ought to be searching VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 14 for some way to detain these violent criminals longer as opposed to putting them back on the streets as a matter of public safety? Secretary CHERTOFF. I fully agree with that. It has been very frustrating when we have occasions where someone serves their sentence, we want to ship them out, that we cannot ship them out because either they have a legal basis to block it under the Convention or the country will not take them back, and then we cannot hold them. So I think at a minimum we should be abe to hold them, and I do believe actually this is something where a legislative cure is appropriate. Senator SPECTER. Let me move to a final point—I have about a minute left—and that is on the issue of voluntary departure. I was struck when I visited the Philadelphia jails and talked to quite a number of men who were there that they would be glad to go back voluntarily if the charges were dropped. And this is a matter that has to be evaluated by the prosecuting attorney who has the discretion in the local courts. But if there is a minor offense—your officials were not pursuing that line. So would you undertake to look at that situation with a view to—first of all, do you think your immigration officials ought to be encouraged to identify people who are held in custody on minor charges to explore the possibility of voluntarily leaving the country, going back to their native country without all the delays which they can interpose? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me say something. Not only do I agree, but we actually have done this with a number of States. We have at least with New York an arrangement where for non-violent criminals, they can actually get a reduction in their sentence if they will go back voluntarily. And the flip side of that is then they are under a restriction that if we should catch them sneaking back in, not only do they get punished for violating the law by coming back in, but they then have to go back and serve the balance of their original sentence. Senator SPECTER. Well, aside from a reduction in sentence, I would like you to explore the issue that people are not sentenced. They are in detention—the detention sometimes lasts several years. Chester County paid out $1,700,000 for their board and keep, was only compensated a couple hundred thousand, and that is taxpayers’ money at the Federal level. Would you explore the issue beyond what you have said on those who have been convicted for lesser time, which I think is a good idea, to see if we can get these people out of our jails where they are minor offenders and send them back to the host country? Secretary CHERTOFF. I would be happy to, but I would also want to make sure that under that circumstance it is clear that if they come back in again illegally, they get a double whammy. They not only get punished for that, but they have to wind up serving their original— Senator SPECTER. Glad to see the double rap if they violate the law again. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Specter. Senator Kennedy? VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 15 Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Thank you and welcome. There are three areas I would like to cover, and I appreciate your cooperation in letting me try to get through them. One is an area that the Chairman has mentioned about the naturalization of individuals who want to become American citizens, the naturalization process. You are familiar with the timeline. In January 2007, the fees were increased. Historically, whenever the fees have been increased, the numbers have spiked before the fee increase. Against this background, we find that not only historically numbers have spiked, but we had a lot of NGOs conducting citizenship campaigns to increase the number of naturalization applicants, which did take place, and we had a fierce debate on the immigration bill in Congress, which caused a lot of concerns, and we should have anticipated that there was going to be a backlog problem. At that particular time, DHS was processing applications within 7 months. Within 7 months. Now after the announcement of the increased fees, processing time has been extended to 14 to 16 months. The administration had indicated you would reduce processing time by 20 percent-–20 percent of 7 months—but we have seen instead the increase in processing time to 14 to 16 months. At the present time, according to the figures that have been provided by CIS to the members of this Committee and our conversations, you would have been able to naturalize applicants up to the period of May of this year, May of 2008, and now the backlog is going to go back to July 2007. That is what CIS has told us. That amounts to 580,000-–580,000—individuals who applied in time who will not get the right to vote. Five hundred eighty thousand. Members of this Committee, have offered to provide additional resources, additional personnel, and we are stuck with this reality. What can you tell individuals who have played by the rules, have done the things that they have had to do that they do not have the right to vote, the most sacred right that we have in our country and our society, and have had background checks. Mr. Mueller and others have pointed out, in the background review of the naturalization applicant there is about 1 percent that have problems. When you have this enormous number of individuals who want to be a part of the American dream, who have paid their taxes, have met various requirements but are outside of the system, what answer can we possibly tell them for the reasons? And what, if anything, can you do about it? Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me say first of all that it is true that historically there has been an increase in applications in anticipation of a fee increase. However, in 1999, there was about a 30-percent increase. This year, there was over a 100-percent increase. So I think the dimensions are unprecedented. As soon as we got the money—and, of course, we needed the money to hire the adjudicators—we went out and trained and hired adjudicators, and we are deploying those. We have also worked with the FBI to reduce some of the delays in the background check process. The consequence of this is that we have reduced the lag time that we originally projected, which was 16 to 18 months. We are now projecting 13 to 15 months. And we are now projecting that VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 16 we will have processed within this fiscal year in time to vote over a million people. That is by comparison to about three-quarters of a million in 2007 and about 800,000 in 2006. So we are making more people citizens more rapidly than ever before, but I have to say mindful not to sacrifice the quality assurance. Obviously, we have more money in the system now. The limiting factor is we need—we still need, A, to train people to adjudicate and, B, the FBI has to be able to process the background checks. And that is— Senator KENNEDY. And I appreciate your response. It is still for people who have played by the rules and tried to get in line. Two other quick questions, because my time is running out. Today, your Department will issue two waivers—one that nullifies 26 Federal laws, another that nullifies nearly 35 Federal laws. These new waivers will create sweeping zones of lawlessness along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. The New York Times is reporting that you refused to explain the decision to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Is it your position that your waiver preempts large unnamed swaths of State land in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California? Your new waiver also applies to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law protecting churches from unlawful seizures. Do you intend to construct the walls on church property without consulting religious— Secretary CHERTOFF. No. No, this is a tribute to the fact that we have laws and creative lawyers that permit people to come up with all kinds of arguments about why we should— Senator KENNEDY. I happen to be the author of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think it applies really to the border. I do not think it actually prevents us from building a fence, but I am quite sure that some lawyer would make an argument that it prevents it. We would then be in court for a couple of years fighting about it, and that would delay the process. The bottom line is we have done an enormous amount of consultation, and we will continue to do, with respect to the environmental rules. However, we are currently in a lawless situation at the border because we have not just human smuggling but drug smuggling and violence occurring there. I had to go visit with the family of a Border Patrol agent who was killed a couple months ago because a smuggler ran him over with a jeep. And that vehicle would not have been there if we had a vehicle barrier in place. So I feel an urgency to get this tactical infrastructure in, and although we are going to be respectful of the environment, we are going to be expeditious. Senator KENNEDY. I think all of us understand we need secure borders. The real question is whether the fence is effective. Half of all the undocumented are coming in and overstaying their visa. And the other side of this is that we are taking and preempting land in these areas, and that has to be, I think, done with great care. A final point, and my time is running out. This is on the number of Iraqi refugees that we are letting in. The administration said VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 17 that it is admitting 12,000 this year. This is outside of the newer program. It is just with regard to the numbers that were agreed to by the administration. On page 17 of your testimony, it says that the U.S. Government has put in place resources for up to 12,000. It says ‘‘up to 12,000.’’ What is it, Mr. Secretary? Is it going to be 12,000 or some nebulous goal? At the present time, the administration has admitted fewer than 3,000. I have listened to the testimony of the ICRC. This is one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time that is happening. We need them to admit move refugees, clearly. We had agreed to 12,000. We are at 3,000 at the present time. What can you tell us? Are we going to meet that number? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the answer to that is yes, Senator. I think we are at about 3,900 right now. Now, of course, we are only one part of the process. There is the U.N. has to make the referrals and the State Department has to do certain things as well. I can assure you that in terms of our piece of the process, we are quite current with respect to interviews, and we have already done 8,600 interviews and conditionally approved 8,600 total. Now, there are some other agencies that are part of the process before everything gets finalized, but we are not going to be an obstacle for hitting 12,000. We are on track to do our part to hit the 12,000. Senator KENNEDY. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Senator Grassley? Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, first, I have two unanimous consents: one, to put an opening statement in the record, and number two, to have some documents connected with my questions inserted in the record. Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] Senator GRASSLEY. The first thing I want to comment on is where Senator Specter left off. I’m only making this as a statement, not something for you to respond to. But along the lines of what Senator Specter was saying about H–1Bs, it’s my personal view, working with Republicans and Democrats on this issue, that the administration needs to think more about using its authority to deny visas. For instance, we have 18,000 Indian nationals here that India won’t take back. By the way, you don’t have to worry, I think, about India torturing their citizens. At least, I don’t think they have that reputation. But at the same time, we turn a blind eye and grant them 20,000 to 40,000 H–1B visas each year. My first question continues with H–1B visas, but in a different vein. Some companies applying for H–1B visas actually are looking for people in positions like pizza-tossers, hotel managers, llama farm operators. Even the Republican Party of California hired a Canadian as ‘‘State Deputy Political Director’’ through the H–1B pilot programs. Now, these don’t seem to me like the high-tech jobs that we’re hearing from industry that they need H–1B visas for. On March 10th, I sent a letter asking for you to show progress on the promise VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 18 made August 2007 to reform visas programs, particularly H–1B. I asked about efforts to institute administrative reforms to reign in fraud and abuse. Your staff responded to me, saying that the Department has ‘‘convened working groups to identify and work on reforms’’. I realize that Congress needs to enact some changes, but I think that this is a very cavalier response to my letter that I have here, indicating that the issue of fraud and abusive in a vicious visa program is not being taken very seriously. In fact, I would have to say that your letter is a non-answer. So, my question: what are you doing to ensure that the program is not being abused and that the U.S. is bringing in the best and the brightest and not just a Republican Party political director for the State of California? Obviously they need some new advice out there. Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me at least give you two examples. One, is we have, I think, promulgated a regulation that prevents or discounts companies that were abusing the process by filing multiple applications for the same people. There were some companies that were flooding the process by having, you know, 10, 20, 30 applications, and because it was a lottery system, they were basically buying more lottery tickets. So we’ve cut that out. The second thing we want to do, although it’s still in the administrative regulatory process, is we want to deal with the problem of companies that attempt to essentially hoard the zone by so dominating the process or banking H–1Bs that other companies don’t have an opportunity to compete. That is in the rulemaking process. I can attest to you, it always takes a lot longer than I’d like it to take because the Administrative Procedures Act makes getting a regulation out of the executive branch like passing a kidney stone. It just takes an enormous amount of time. I’m kicking people to get this moving as quickly as possible, because I agree that the program has been abused. I promise you, I will continue to prod on these issues, because I agree with you, we should not let some companies try to exploit the process. Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I would appreciate, on another point— this being the Optional Practical Training Program—more information. I’ll get into some details in just a minute. But this program is administered by your Department. I’d like to make sure we know who is here on OPT and what they’re doing. Foreign students obviously are the ones that take advantage of this. There are no requirements, like wage requirements, no protections of our own U.S. students or workers, virtually no strings attached. These are people that could be sitting on the beach in California for a year, they could be playing some guitar on the streets of New York, who knows what. I know you’re responding to the squeals of powerful business interests regarding their inability to bring in an infinite number of foreign workers through the H–1B visa program. Their latest attempt to get around the H–1B program is to keep these foreign students here longer than 1 year. We don’t keep track of them. So, two questions. Does the Department of Homeland Security know how many people are in the United States on OPT status today? Second, does the Department know where each and every VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 19 person with OPT status is in the United States if they needed to track them down? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think—I believe the answer to that, but I’m going to have to verify it, is yes to the first, and to the second, you know, if we grant someone Optional Practical Training, it’s with the understanding that they’re going to be working in a particular setting. Now, could someone abscond or violate the rule? Yes, that happens all the time. I mean, people violate rules all the time. Then, of course, they would not only lose their OPT status, but they would lose the possibility of ultimately getting a green card or a long-term work visa, which, from their standpoint and from the company’s standpoint, would be a pretty serious sanction. So, I’ll get—I mean, I’ll verify all this, but that’s my understanding. Senator GRASSLEY. Last fall, I sent you a letter asking for information about two University of South Florida students arrested near Goose Creek, South Carolina with explosives in their trunk. They’re Egyptian nationals, and have been charged with terrorismrelated offenses. I learned that one of them, Ahmed Mohammed, entered the United States on a student visa, despite having been previously arrested in Egypt. Worse than that, he had even declared his arrest on his visa application form. I then inquired to find out why the State Department and why your Department failed to use their shared responsibilities over visa policies to keep an individual like this, and this specific individual, out of the country. It took 4 months to get a reply from your Department, and even then all I got was a letter that denied my request on the grounds that the indicted terrorist had not consented to the release of his records. So, could you explain why this Committee should be denied information necessary to conduct oversight of the visa issuance process just because an indicted terrorist, who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a legal permanent resident, didn’t give his consent? Doesn’t that sound a little ridiculous? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, it does. But unfortunately sometimes we operate under constraints that are—legal constraints that are a little bit puzzling. Let me tell you what my understanding of the rule is. First of all, obviously I can’t publicly comment about the individual because there’s a pending case. The case is going to go to trial. If I say anything about the individual in a public forum, I’m going to have a judge getting on my back about why I’m, you know, creating a problem for the jury. In terms of responding in writing, my understanding is that if the Chairman makes a request for this kind of information we are permitted, under the relevant laws, to convey a lot of this information. And that’s just the way the law is written. I didn’t write it, but we have to abide by it. So if the Chairman makes the request, I think that does give us an ability to be a little more forthcoming about this. Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure I was aware of that law. I was treated rudely by the Department as a FOIA request, not as a Senator’s request. So I might ask you to sign a letter for some information that I might want on some of these issues VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 20 that I’m not getting an answer because I’m not Chairman of the Committee. Chairman LEAHY. For several decades, the Senator from Iowa and I have worked together, when he’s been in the Majority or when I’ve been in the Majority, to get things, and of course I’ll work with him. If we can sit down later, we’ll figure it out what it is you want and I’ll join you on the request. Senator Feinstein? Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chertoff, I’d like to join with those who thank you for your service. It is very much appreciated. As you know, I have a lot of concerns about the visa waiver program. I believe it’s the soft underbelly of this country. And because so many millions come in from so many countries, it represents a real threat not only to profound over-stays, but also to the security of our Nation. Not long ago, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, and I had a hearing and, on March 3rd, the three of us sent you a letter requesting that DHS explain how it plans to comply with two requirements of the 9/11 legislation, specifically that it develop a fully operational electronic travel authorization system, and second, that it certify that there’s an air exit system in place that can verify the departure of 97 percent of the foreign nationals who leave through airports in the United States. At the hearing on February 28th, we were informed by your staff that DHS may use a methodology that only tracks departures without considering whether an individual arrived in determining the departure of the 97 percent. In other words, if two people come into the country, or three, or four, or five, and only one leaves, the only track is on the one that leaves. This is what we were told. We wrote to you, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, and I, that such a methodology is unacceptable. It does not account for a person who has arrived and departure, nor does it track those who have over-stayed their visas. Now, we haven’t received a response. We believe that methodology violates the law. If you care to respond to this now, we’d be very happy. Secretary CHERTOFF. I’d be happy to. I will write a letter, but I actually pulled the letter because I wasn’t satisfied it was clear. Senator FEINSTEIN. You thought it might come up? Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I wasn’t satisfied it was clear enough. I think there might have been, in the prior hearing, the Committee and the witness might have talked past each other. So, let me try to explain my understanding of the law, which I have looked at and I have in front of me. First of all, we will have the electronic system of travel authorization up and running before the program—before the expansion of the program. Senator FEINSTEIN. At every port of entry? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. It’s not a port of entry. For every—for traveler—before we admit a country into the program, they will have to—their visitors will have to submit the electric travel authorization. It’s not done at the port of entry, it’s done online before you leave. So by the time you arrive at the port of entry, we will have done the assessment of the travel authorization. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 21 Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me stop you there. What are there, 23 million people that come in? It’s 13 million people, or 16 million, I believe, came in. So does that refer to the existing countries in the visa waiver program or only the new countries? Secretary CHERTOFF. We will begin with the new countries. Existing countries, we will then, as we expand the program over the next 9 months, we will bring all the old countries in. But the requirement of the law is, as a predicate to admitting the new country, we have to have this in place. This is something we argued for. We want it to happen. So we are going to begin in a few months with the first deployment of the system and we’ll begin with some of the smaller countries first and start the process there, and then ultimately we will cover everybody. With respect to the 97 percent— Senator FEINSTEIN. Incidentally, if I might. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I will. Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator FEINSTEIN. The countries you’re admitting are all above the legal refusal rate. We know that. Secretary CHERTOFF. So then we come to the next element, because there are a number of tests that have to be met. The current—the old rule was, the visa refusal rate was 3 percent. The statute raised the visa refusal rate to 10 percent. That allowed some countries that fell within the 3 percent to 10 percent range to become eligible, provided they did the other things in the statute. One of the things the statute then provides, is that the Secretary of State and I, or my successor, can admit countries using an alternative to the visa refusal rate if we can demonstrate that the actual over-stay rate is below a certain number that we have to determine is consistent with national security. In order to make that determination, we have to compare the entry and the exit to make sure that we know how many people from each country are overstaying and how many are leaving, and that’s what we need to do in order to get to that. Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, but in other words, you’re making up your own refusal rate. Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I’m— Senator FEINSTEIN. The law says 10 percent. Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just finish. Latvia, which you’re going to admit, is at 11.8 percent; Slovakia, 12 percent; Lithuania, 12.9 percent; and Hungary, at 10.3 percent. Secretary CHERTOFF. Those will only be admitted when they fall below 10 percent. I think if you—in other words, you may be using figures from last year. These are countries which are laying the groundwork to be admitted, but they will have to meet the 10 percent or below threshold. We’re not waiving the 10 percent requirement, but they are, as your own figures indicate, coming very close to 10 percent. So— Senator FEINSTEIN. What are the other countries that you are going to admit? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the ones we’ve signed up so far, and these are the ones we think are close to satisfying the require- VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 22 ments, are: the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Hungary. I think there are other states that—that’s in Eastern Europe. It may be that South Korea will be in a position relatively soon to meet the requirement. Some of the other countries are further off and, although they may begin the process of negotiating on other elements, I think everybody understands, until they hit all the requirements, they will not actually be admitted. But some of them may want to get started on some of the information exchange and things of that sort, you know, while they’re hoping to drive the visa refusal rate down, and that’s OK. But we’re not excusing them from the visa refusal rate requirement, we’re just trying to get some of the preliminary work done so when the hit the mark they can then be admitted. Senator FEINSTEIN. And what you’re telling us is that every one of the visitors, which will be, literally, hundreds of thousands that come in in these programs will have the fraud-proof passport, they will be checked when they come in, and they will be checked when they go out? Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Senator FEINSTEIN. And you will know where they are in this country when they come in? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we will know that they’ve come in. They will put on their form where they’re going to be, and then we will know when they leave. Now, as with any other visitor, if someone says they’re going to be in Massachusetts and they lie to us and they go to Ohio, we’re not going to know that until the time comes that they should have departed. At that point we’ll know the over-stayed. Now, will we be able to find them immediately? It depends. It depends if they’re hiding or not. That’s true of all kinds of fugitives. But we will have achieved, I think, what we did not have, which is visibility into the flow in and out such that we can determine whether a particular country has an over-stay rate that is unacceptable, which I think is ultimately where we all want to go. Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. I think my time has run out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. May I enter these two letters into the record? Chairman LEAHY. Of course. Senator FEINSTEIN. One on visa waiver, and the second on border tunnels. Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. My list had Senator Sessions next, but he’s not here. Senator Kyl? Senator KYL. Thank you very much. Chairman LEAHY. Oh. Senator Sessions is here. I’m sorry. Senator SESSIONS. I’ll defer to Senator Kyl. That’s fine. Chairman LEAHY. OK. I take my list from the Republican side, so— Senator KYL. We are a courteous bunch, and I appreciate that very much from my colleague. I think Senator Sessions was here first. But, Mr. Secretary, you have an impossible job to do. There’s always room to find criticism. I hope that it’s always constructive. I do appreciate your efforts, and those of your Department. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 23 I just want to lead by saying that over the break I was down in Yuma. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it might be of interest that over half of all of the illegal immigrants coming into the United States across our border come through the Tucson sector, about 51 or 52 percent, so this is a huge problem in Arizona and the Tucson sector has a lot of work to do. The Yuma sector is the other part of the Arizona border and goes over into Senator Feinstein’s State for about 10 or 12 miles. What is illustrated by Congress’ efforts, with the Department of Homeland Security, is that when we put our mind to it, we can significantly affect the problem of illegal crossing. Fences are being constructed, vehicle barriers, double fences, a lot more agents, radars deployed, and all of this has had a dramatic impact, along with one other program which I’m going to get to, and that is automatically detaining and not releasing to the border Mexican citizens. The combination of these has, at least in the first 6 months of the fiscal year, reduced illegal immigration in this sector by an order of magnitude. Now, that’s a big change. What it shows is that if we have the will and if we apply the resources, we can get the job done. The one question I have, Mr. Secretary, is that, as you know, in the Yuma sector they have begun to do the same thing that’s been done in Del Rio, Texas, and the Tucson sector is also beginning, the detention of aliens with the prospect, in most cases, of a 60-day detention in jail automatically. It’s a zero-tolerance policy. This has had a dramatic deterrent effect. People just don’t want to come through that area because they can’t afford to be 60 days without work, and that’s those that just come to work and not commit a crime. The question I have, and I would appreciate a written answer, really, because we have a lot of information from the chief judge of the Arizona District Court for that area, about what they need to process this many people, is your estimates of the costs that the Congress can help defray for the entire tale of the judicial process from the additional court space, the judges, the magistrates, the marshals, the clerks, the prosecutors, the public defenders, and, perhaps most importantly, the detention space itself. What would be needed to ensure that this kind of program could continue in Yuma and could be fully implemented in the Tucson sector, and anywhere else along the border that you think it should, and what do you think about the program? Secretary CHERTOFF. First, let me say I think the program is a great program. To be clear for the public, this is more than just detention. We do detain everybody, as it is under immigration authorities, until we deport them. This is actual criminal punishment, which does have a remarkable deterrent effect and it’s worked very well in the Del Rio sector. As far as the money, I’m delighted to answer. I’m going to need to have the Department of Justice really put the facts together, because it’s really their stuff rather than mine. Senator KYL. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll make that inquiry of them. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 24 But Congress has, over the last 3 years, at least, been very willing to fund whatever works. It seems to me that this is one of those things that clearly works, and I do know that there is additional funding that will be required for this. Is there sufficient money for the remainder of 2008 to achieve the fencing requirements that you identified in your opening statement, and does the budget for 2009 reflect an adequate sum to do the remainder of the work in 2009? Secretary CHERTOFF. The answer to that is yes. The money that’s appropriated in 2008, already appropriated, is sufficient to get us through what we need to do this fiscal year. The money we’ve requested for 2009 would get us to what we need in 2009, but of course that hasn’t passed yet, so that depends on Congress. Senator KYL. Thank you. With regard to the exit-entry system—Senator Feinstein talked a little bit about this—on page 15 of your testimony you talked a little bit about this. First of all, can you describe the process when it becomes apparent that an individual has not exited, but should have by then? What actually happens in terms of notifying other law enforcement so that whoever might have an opportunity to inquire of the individual in terms of law enforcement authority, a highway patrolman in some State, or whoever it might be, would actually have the information enabling them to know to ask the appropriate questions? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the answer is that under the current system we have some, but not complete, information on this at our law enforcement center up in—I think it’s up in Vermont, where if you apprehend someone you can call and get information. But we have not yet fully automated it. To do that, we need to move from the current biographic-based system which looks at names to a biometric-based system which is fingerprints. That is, of course, US-VISIT air exit. Now, I would very much like to do this this year. We can get it done by next summer, but there’s one obstacle: the airlines are bitterly opposed to it. I know they’ve been up here complaining about it, because they view the requirement of giving fingerprints, if you’re a foreigner, when you leave the country, as interfering with their business model. This, Senator, goes right back to the point we made earlier about willpower. We can get it done. We’re poised to issue a rule. But it will require the willpower to face down the airline industry in order to implement it. Senator KYL. I appreciate that. Why doesn’t the biographical information itself—if, for example, you have a name and then any other identifying feature, a Social Security number or a birthplace, whatever it is, if that information is sent to all of the local police, highway patrol, and elsewhere, wouldn’t that be a significant improvement over the lack of any information today? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it’s—I don’t know if I’m that well versed in the technical element, but I think simply sending a list of that all over the place would, I think, be really inefficient. I’d like to see us move to a system where, when you get the overstays—right now it’s a system where we know when you leave. If we could get it all integrated in a data base, particularly with a fingerprint data base so there was a unique identifier, we could VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 25 then construct an automated system that—and I think we have it partly now, but not entirely—kicks out when you are, let’s say, over 90 days or whatever it is, or a week over 90 days. That could then be in our data base in Vermont and anybody who wanted to ping it could ping it if they arrest somebody. It would be up to the local law enforcement. So I think we have this partially in effect now, but I’m not confident that we have it seamlessly or fully in effect. Some of it is an automation problem, but some of it is that, in general, a namesbased system is not as reliable as a fingerprint-based system. Senator KYL. Well, understood. But, you know, Mohammed Attah, for example, was stopped, I believe it was twice. If he had used his name—and I gather he did—if law enforcement had had a place to call in, then a whole lot of things might not have happened that ended up happening. It just seems to me that perfection shouldn’t be the enemy of the good here. Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree. I agree. We’re going to be working toward this, I agree with you. I just want to make sure that we do it in a way that’s cost-effective so we don’t waste money. That’s the only other constraint. Senator KYL. Well, let me just ask one final question here. If it’s in the Vermont data base, what would be necessary for a local law enforcement, or say highway patrol, to gain access to that data base in a real-time way, like a traffic stop? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think they call in. I don’t know whether they go in online or whether they call in, but there is a way they can communicate in. And they use it. The system does yield benefits. The reason I’m a little hesitant, is I’m not sure it is a complete system. It may depend upon what we input as opposed to something that’s fully automated. Senator KYL. Would you, for the record, expand on that? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, I will. Senator KYL. Have your office give us a more complete answer on that. Secretary CHERTOFF. I’ll give you a more complete and maybe a more—I’m not fully confident in my answer, so I want to give you a verified answer. Senator KYL. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. And I thank my colleagues. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Senator Schumer? Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you. And, first, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having these hearings, which are very important. I appreciate Secretary Chertoff being here. First, I’d like to start off with some questions on border security. As a New Yorker, as an American, I have an unshakable commitment to securing our country from those who want to harm us. However, when it comes to border security, as you know, Mr. Secretary, I’ve sometimes differed with DHS on the best way to achieve the goal. First, I want to thank the Department for their little-noticed, but important regulation that said that they were going to comply with the law that Senator Leahy and others put into effect to delay the passports until 2009. I just want to say that I appreciate, Secretary VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 26 Chertoff, your efforts to work with New York State to develop an enhanced driver’s license that can be used instead of passports to cross land borders in Canada. I think the licenses, the enhanced licenses, building on REAL ID, something I’ve always supported, is a very good alternative that gives us both security, but makes commerce easier. If they’re done right, they can assure both. I want to tell you, I’ve spoken to Governor Patterson. I know we had had meetings that I had set up between you and Governor Spitzer, which myself Senator Clinton, Congressmen Reynolds and Slaughter attended, and now we have Governor Patterson. I know he fully supports the development of enhanced licenses. I understand the process is going well, from your Department and from New York State’s point of view. New York has submitted a business plan for your Department’s approval. The goal is rolling out the new licenses State-wide by the late summer, and focusing on the border areas first—Buffalo, Watertown, Plattsburg, places that really have the need. So to move forward, New York is going to need a timely response to their proposed plan. When can you commit to giving a response to New York’s business plan for enhanced driver’s licenses? Secretary CHERTOFF. I can’t give you a precise date. We will do it promptly because we’ve already—you know, not only did we approve the State of Washington, they’ve actually begun the process of issuing them. Senator SCHUMER. Right. Secretary CHERTOFF. They’ve issued 6,500. Senator SCHUMER. Right. Secretary CHERTOFF. So we’ll do it as fast as we can. Senator SCHUMER. Do you think within the next month we can get an answer? Our goal is to get this going before 2009. Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe the answer to that is yes. I’m going to have to verify that. Senator SCHUMER. OK. If you could verify, but I’ll take it as a tentative yes, which I appreciate. Secretary CHERTOFF. I certainly like you doing that. Senator SCHUMER. Right. Secretary CHERTOFF. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to. Senator SCHUMER. Now, if you have concerns with New York’s plan, will you commit to working cooperatively and productively with New York to resolve concerns rather than sending us back to square one? Secretary CHERTOFF. Oh, absolutely. We want this. We think this is a good thing. This is—there’s a unity of interest here. Senator SCHUMER. OK. And will you commit to just doing whatever you can so that we can start issuing the licenses, as we hope, by the end of the summer? Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. Senator SCHUMER. Right. OK. And do you agree with me that enhanced driver licenses, if done right, will be just as secure for border crossings as passport books? Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. Senator SCHUMER. Good. Secretary CHERTOFF. For land borders. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 27 Senator SCHUMER. This is a very good interchange. We don’t have so many of those these days. So wouldn’t it make more sense right now for DHS to focus limited resources on driver licenses—it provides better security and efficiency—as opposed to a new rule that requires birth certificates at the border, which, in the past, you had even said was not the best way to go about doing this? Secretary CHERTOFF. Here’s the problem. The problem is that I believe that next June—not every State is going to want to do the license. I think by next June we can easily be in a position to meet the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The problem I have is that I’ve got to deal with the period of time between now and next June. As I said in the opening statement, just a couple of weeks ago we found a guy coming through Buffalo trying to make an oral declaration, discovered that that wasn’t going to work anymore, got pulled into the secondary, and we discovered he was masquerading as an American citizen. He’d been rejected coming into the country in Mexico. He had been previously removed. So I’m trying to plug a gap now in the interim between where we sit and June 2009, but I very much want to see us, in June 2009, with an enhanced driver’s license. For any State that will do it, we’ll be happy to do it. Senator SCHUMER. Right. And New York does, Washington does. Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Senator SCHUMER. I mean, the worry here is this summer when the traffic over the borders increases. You have all kinds of vacationers. We in New York State expect a lot of Canadians coming, given the values of the dollar, to help our tourist season. We’re worried that if they think it’s going to be very onerous—so far it hasn’t. Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Senator SCHUMER. And, you know, when they say they don’t have a birth certificate, you just give them a warning. Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, the Canadians are—I mean, we’ve had to get their attention, too. The Canadians are now putting money into their budget for increased distribution of Nexus cards, which I know you know is also acceptable. Senator SCHUMER. That’s fine. Yes. Secretary CHERTOFF. So, you know, we’re working through the process. But we do have to deal with an existing act. Senator SCHUMER. I would just urge you to focus fully on driver’s licenses. The birth certificates, in my judgment, are going to be a dead end. Anyway, let me go to something else, which is citizenship backlogs, which I know the Chairman and Senator Kennedy have asked questions about. I just have a few more because, as you know, we received a letter from CIS which explained the status of naturalization applications pending with CIS. The letter states, ‘‘Historically, there have been increased filings in advance of fee increases, Presidential elections, immigration debates, and new legislation.’’ Now, given that DHS is aware of trends in application filings, how is DHS credible in saying it couldn’t have anticipated a major surge in applications in 2007, VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 28 where we saw a fee increase, the start of a Presidential campaign, and a national immigration debate all at once? Secretary CHERTOFF. I would say, if we go back historically, in 1999, which was the last major increase, there was a bump-up of about 30 percent. It was the magnitude. The bump-up here was over 100 percent. So, that was one. I think the magnitude startled everybody. But the larger problem is this. In order to deal with the mass of people, you need to hire adjudicators and people to deal with the work. Senator SCHUMER. Yes. Secretary CHERTOFF. Until you get the fee increase you can’t hire them, because you can’t hire people if you don’t pay it. Then once we got the fee increase, we began to hire, but they still have to be trained. So, inevitably there is some lag that occurs when you— until you get the money in the pipeline— Senator SCHUMER. Let me interrupt you here for a minute because my time is running out. I understand the training. I would like to see even a sort of program where, out of the general fund, people could be hired in anticipation of the fees coming in, because we can’t wait. But let’s just talk about the training. Last year, as you know, I pushed CIS. I pushed to have CIS get authority to re-hire retired workers—they don’t have to be trained, they’ve been doing this for years, and often decades, very well—to help address the backlog. That was in December. I regret to say it’s now April and not one has been hired. We called in the former head of CIS, who had very poor—he’s no longer there. He resigned the same day we talked to him, although he didn’t tell us that he was resigning. But he had very poor answers in terms of contacting people. There were 700 people that they’d identified. They sent them a letter. There was no followup. These people are invaluable, because some of them would want to get back to work. Now we’ve made it so that they don’t get their pensions cutoff or anything by coming back and working till you can train the new workers. Can you give us some assurances about the retired workers and going all out to hire them as quickly as possible, particularly Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me find out. Senator SCHUMER.—when we have the Presidential election coming up soon. Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me find out about that. I wasn’t aware there was a problem rehiring them. I know that our estimates about the number of people we can process have gotten better. We’ve had a higher and higher projection as time has gone on. Again, as I said earlier, I would like to process as many people as we can, consistent with, obviously, security. So, I’ll find out about that. Senator SCHUMER. Could you get back to me? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator SCHUMER. Because to not hire one retiree, when I know there are many who want to come work and they don’t need the rehiring, that’s the, at least, most immediate answer. I think the Department is sort of twiddling its thumbs. Secretary CHERTOFF. I’ll find out the answer. Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 29 Mr. Chairman, thank you. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Senator Sessions? Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. I think you’re one of the most able members of the President’s cabinet. I’ve known you for a number of years and I highly respect you and your capabilities. I do believe that this administration has been less than fully committed in terms of will to creating a lawful system of immigration in our country and eliminating some of the border problems, and you and I have had discussions about that. But you have made some progress. First, I’ll ask you about that. Arrests were down 20 percent last year. Just for those who may not understand, the year before we arrested 1.1 million people entering our country illegally, and that reduction took us down to about 870,000. That is 20 percent. Do you think that is a reflection on the number of people who are attempting to enter the country also? Secretary CHERTOFF. I do. It’s not a perfect reflection, but we also validate it by looking at other measures, like activities south of the border and things of that sort. So I’m comfortable, I’m persuaded, that it is, in general, a reflection of the decrease in efforts to come across. Senator SESSIONS. Some of that, I think, is because we’ve sent a message to the world that the border is no longer open. We’ve had the National Guard there, although I’m very concerned, and I think the Governors of California and New Mexico also, of the removal of the National Guard that will be occurring this summer and the increased enforcement in fencing, and barriers, and Border Patrol, all of which work, and the prosecutorial policy in those four districts seems to be working. So those are things we know work. The question is, will we follow through and continue to see another reduction, and another reduction? Certainly in my own view, this Nation could easily get to an 80 percent reduction in illegality at our borders in the next few years if we have, as a Nation, the commitment to do so. There are some questions that have been raised about your waiving environmental rules so that these barriers could be constructed at the border. We realize in Congress, when we passed the Fencing Act, that these lawsuits could delay indefinitely. I would note that you have a letter sent to you from the Secretary of Interior, the Associate Deputy, saying that, ‘‘Because our visitors and employees are at risk, we had to close off substantial portions of Department of Interior lands. The infrastructure will improve the security of our lands and increase the safety of both our visitors and our employees. Finally, these pedestrian and vehicle fences will decrease some adverse environmental effects of the illegal activities upon the fragile plant and animal communities located within the Interior lands.’’ So the Department of Interior has indicated it will actually help the environment by reducing this broad traffic that’s occurring there. Secretary CHERTOFF. That’s correct. Senator SESSIONS. They sent that to you. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 30 Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator SESSIONS. That was part of your decision-making process. Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. And I’ve also discussed this with the Secretary. So, I mean, we had a discussion over months about this issue. Senator SESSIONS. Well, we realized from the beginning that if we intended to move decisively on barriers at the border, lawsuits of this kind would have to be taken off the table. On the E-Verify, some 58,000 employers now utilize this computer system to verify the person’s Social Security number that they’re hiring before they hire. I understand 1,000 per week employers are signing up. Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Senator SESSIONS. Tell us about the accuracy of that, briefly. Are there benefits for innocent people, legitimate people, when a ‘‘no match’’ occurs? Secretary CHERTOFF. I gave you some figures earlier. Now I’m actually—I’ve reminded myself, I think actually the figures—those might be slightly out of date. They’ve actually gotten better. Basically, inaccuracies, where there’s actually a mistake in the system, are less than 1 percent, and those get resolved. What we find is that about 95 percent, I think is the most recent figure, get immediately validated through the system on the spot. Then of the remainder, there’s a very small number where there is a mistake and it’s rectified. Of course, there are some where there’s not a mistake and those people, not surprisingly, just fade away because they realize that their Social Security number isn’t valid. We are enhancing the system by giving people the capability with certain kinds of documents, Federal documents, to also verify with a photograph that the underlying document is, in fact, accurate and matches our data base, and that makes it even a more useful system. This is not a cure-all because it doesn’t necessarily catch the person who steals a legal person’s identity, so that remains a vulnerability we’re trying to deal with in other ways. I do want to take the opportunity, Senator, to again plead to have this reauthorized. The authorization runs out this year. Everybody wants it. Let’s enable those who want to obey the law to do that. Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. There’s no doubt that we should reauthorize it. In fact, we should require it and move forward with that. It would be one of the most significant steps this Nation could take. But a lot of employers apparently are quite willing to do this when asked. It’s certainly a minimal disruption of their business. I think they are given their information within seconds, or minutes, of the inquiry. Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. Senator SESSIONS. It’s not going to delay the employment. I would offer for the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano. She says this about the National Guard: ‘‘We continue to remove, and eventually terminate, a successful program using the National Guard in our border Operation Jump Start. I urgently request that you reconsider the drawn-down of Jump Start and instead retain National Guard per- VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 31 sonnel strength and numbers necessary to maintain the hard-won improvements and operational controls of the international border.’’ Mr. Secretary, first, I’ll offer that for the record. Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. Senator SESSIONS. And, second, are you concerned about the removal of the Guard at the border under the current law? Secretary CHERTOFF. Senator, when we started this 2 years ago we had about 11,300 Border Patrol. The understanding was, we were going to have 6,000 Guard. They were going to drawn down over 2 years as we matched them, basically, one-for-one with our Border Patrol. By the time we do the draw-down in July, we will be at about 16,500, so we will essentially have added 5,000 Border Patrol, a little over 5,000 Border Patrol, to replace the National Guard that have been pulled off. I should also say that we have always, and will continue to, use National Guard not just—not under Jump Start, but under routine training, so you will continue to see National Guard at the border, but it won’t be under this program and it won’t be in the same number. I am confident that we have the personnel in place so that, as of this summer, we will essentially be pretty close to one-for-one replacement of National Guard with Border Patrol. All things being equal, a Border Patrol agent is more effective than a National Guardsman because they can do more things. We are also using— Senator SESSIONS. But you would have to admit, would you not, it would reduce your capability because even though you’re bringing on Border Patrol agents, the Guard is providing— Secretary CHERTOFF. It surely provides a capability. But— Senator SESSIONS. Capability that would be lost. My time is about out. I would offer, Mr. President, an article in the New York Times, March 28, indicating that there are 304,000 immigrant criminals eligible for deportation that are behind bars, in jail today. Senator Specter asked you some about that. If you need additional money— Chairman LEAHY. It will be made part of the record, without objection. Senator SESSIONS.—I would ask that you ask for that. I mean, it’s just fundamental that we follow through on that requirement. Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we have asked for money and I think we have a strategy that we have presented to the appropriators for this. Senator SESSIONS. Well, I hope that you will. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse? Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. Just quickly, of the 304,000 that were discussed, how many of those folks eligible for deportation are presently Federal inmates? Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know the answer to that. I’m sure only a fraction are. I’m sure most of them are— Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, presumably a very small fraction. Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 32 Senator WHITEHOUSE. But if you could get that number, I would appreciate it. Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. Senator WHITEHOUSE. In terms of our evaluation of that question, you’ve indicated that there are concerns about the treatment of the inmate in the host country if they were to return, particularly being subject to torture. That would be one concern. Another concern, I assume you would agree, would be inmates who are so dangerous, that we’d rather keep them locked up tight in the United States rather than face the risk of reentry if we don’t have confidence in the security of the system in the home country, major heads of drug-dealing organizations and things like that. Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I guess, yes, if you have a really bad guy. If we got a sentence that’s a life sentence, I’d rather keep him locked up for life than send him out, unless I’m confident that the host country will let this— Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. So that will be an issue. Are there reciprocality issues? Would you be concerned that Americans would be—we’d have to treat, say, a— Secretary CHERTOFF. No. No. I don’t want to over—the issue of torture is a very small number. Senator WHITEHOUSE. I understand. Secretary CHERTOFF. So that’s not a big issue. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Lots of issues. Secretary CHERTOFF. The largest issue is, frankly, some countries are just very dilatory about taking their people back. China is really the worst in that respect. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. Secretary CHERTOFF. Interestingly, the Latin American countries are quite good, and we work with them and they’re very effective in taking their people back. Senator WHITEHOUSE. And has the experience been that if they’re released into those systems, they actually are kept? Secretary CHERTOFF. It hasn’t been uniform. Sometimes, unfortunately, some of the countries in Latin America don’t have the capability, and we try to work with them. We’ve given them assistance in identifying people who are being sent back who are dangerous so they can try to keep them in jail. But once they serve their sentence, as you know, we can’t just keep them in jail. The host country can’t keep them in jail. That’s a problem. That is a problem for us. Senator WHITEHOUSE. And would you have any problem incarcerating, in the United States, an American who was convicted of a foreign crime in a foreign country and deported from that country for an immigration violation on the same terms that we’re talking about in which we would deport foreign nationals subject to incarceration in their home country to— Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it has to be done by treaty. In other words, we have these prisoner exchange treaties. I know with Mexico, for example, if you get a 20-year sentence in Mexico, we have an arrangement where you can, as a U.S. citizen, serve your time back in the U.S., and vice versa. I think if someone were deported without that, we would have trouble putting them in jail unless we could prosecute them under our own laws. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 33 Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the treaty would be a key component. Secretary CHERTOFF. That’s right. Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. Secretary CHERTOFF. And we have that, I know, with Mexico. Senator WHITEHOUSE. On a different subject, are you familiar with the OCDETF program? Secretary CHERTOFF. From my last job, it’s dimly implanted in my mind, yes. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Familiar enough to describe it briefly for people who are listening and don’t know what we’re talking about? Secretary CHERTOFF. My knowledge may be out of date. Back when I was head of the Criminal Division when I was a prosecutor, it was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. It was designed to bring together Federal and State authorities to focus on, you know, more organized narcotics trafficking organizations. Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it’s still going and very active and very helpful in your estimation, is it not? Secretary CHERTOFF. I have—to the extent I know. But I have to say I don’t have a lot of visibility into it. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. The Fusion Center program that the administration has embarked on in a variety of different areas. Are you familiar with that? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator WHITEHOUSE. There is evidently an OCDETF, to use one term, Fusion Center, to use another, not far from where we’re sitting right now whose function is to fuse, to bring together, information from a variety of Federal law enforcement agencies to enhance the mission of protecting us from organized criminal organizations that traffic in narcotics. I am informed that the Immigration and Customs enforcement folks refuse to participate in it, won’t send someone to the meetings, won’t like data bases to what is called the Compass program, which is the computer network set up for the Fusion Center to integrate ATF, FBI, Secret Service, all the different law enforcement computer data bases. I’m interested—and I understand that the Border Patrol is now beginning to look at participating, but to date hasn’t. Since those are both DHS agencies, I’m wondering if you know why they’re refusing to participate in this function. Secretary CHERTOFF. I had not heard that, so I’ll just have to find out. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would you? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because I think it makes sense. Between the two of us, we can agree that if the purpose of the OCDETF function is to protect this country from organized criminal efforts to engage in narcotics trafficking, the Border/Customs function is a pretty darned essential part of that equation. Secretary CHERTOFF. Oh, there’s no question about it. Senator WHITEHOUSE. And when you have Treasury agencies, Justice agencies, and all sorts of other kinds of agencies—and you and I both remember—I was a U.S. Attorney, as you may recall— it can be pretty complicated to chase through multiple data bases if you had to find a particular individual. To coordinate those in these Fusion Centers seems like a pretty good idea. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 34 Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t know enough about the specifics to give you an answer. But I’ll find out about it. Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you could find out why they’re refusing to participate, and if there’s a reason that they aren’t doing it, I’d like to try to get through that reason. Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. Senator WHITEHOUSE. If there’s no reason, if you could clear whatever bureaucracy. Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. I will look into that. Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you could let me know when you’ll get back to me. Secretary CHERTOFF. OK. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thirty days? Sixty days? Ninety days? Pick a number. Any time is good for me, just so I know. Secretary CHERTOFF. Why don’t we say 45 days? Senator WHITEHOUSE. Forty-five days. I’d appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. I will do that. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Senator Cornyn? Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it’s good to see you. Thank you for your service. I agree with Senator Kyl, you’ve got perhaps one of the most difficult jobs in the President’s cabinet. But I think you’ve done an outstanding job. I appreciate your working with me and my constituents in Texas. I want to go into that in just a little bit here. First, let’s talk about the Secure Fence Act. On September 29, 2006, it passed by a vote of 80 to 19. Interestingly, all of the potential nominees for President of the United States voted ‘‘aye’’. Of course, it passed with strong bipartisan support. I, frankly, felt like it needed some additional modification. Senator Hutchison and I sponsored an amendment that required consultation with local land owners and community leaders, and you’ve been very good about doing that consultation. I want to talk about that in just a second. But first I want to also relay some statistics with regard to the work you’ve done to try to get voluntary cooperation with local land owners in my State. As you know, unlike some of the other States on the border, Texas is largely private property. Frankly, a lot of these landowners have told me they’re afraid to go out on their own ranch unprotected because of criminal activity occurring, coming across the border, particularly associated with narco-trafficking, and the like. But out of 414, I believe, land owners along the Southwest border that have agreed to access by the Department of Homeland Security, only 46 have refused access, roughly 10 percent. Of course, we know that there is litigation occurring in some cases. I’m glad to see that there are negotiated settlements occurring, particularly with institutions like the University of Texas at Brownsville, to try to work out something that makes sense. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 35 I had mixed feelings about the Secure Fence Act because I didn’t want anybody to be under the misimpression that by building fencing we would resolve our border security problem. I know of no fence built by the hand of man that could not be scaled, could not be tunneled under, could not be gone through, so that’s why I voted for it. I would note that despite those who criticize it today—and frankly, a lot of them are in my State along the border who don’t like the idea of fencing—there has been no attempt to try to repeal the fence requirement. For myself, I supported it because the Border Patrol told me they thought they needed it. Our professional law enforcement officials, if they tell me they need something, just like our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, if they tell me they need something in order to do their job, then I’m going to support it. But I think it’s simplistic to think that, by building a fence, we’re going to solve all of our border security problems. You testified about the need for more Border Patrol. I’m glad to know that we’ve trained roughly 16,000. I would note there are 40,000 police officers in New York, roughly, so we’re still lagging. I know it takes time but I think we’ve made some progress. Technology obviously is very important. You’ve talked a little bit about that. But I believe only a combination of boots on the ground, technology, and tactical infrastructure or fencing in hard-to-control places are we going to have an opportunity for success along the border. But I want to mention specifically your work in Hidalgo County and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. You were good to come down for a recent press conference and announcement where, as a result of the local consultation with officials in that area, we’ve been able to accomplish what I would not have believed possible—that is to take something as controversial as this Secure Fence Act and to come up with a win-win situation. As you know, that involves the dual use of the improved levee system, which is a Federal Government responsibility down in Hidalgo County. And let me just read a quotation to you from the county judge of Hidalgo County. He said, ‘‘Hidalgo County has been at the forefront of the border fence issue from day one, pushing our elected officials in Washington to listen to community concerns and formulating a strategy to protect the residents of Hidalgo County from floodwaters, while accomplishing the plans of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to protect our Nation’s borders. It’s a good day when Washington listens and responds to our needs. Hidalgo County appreciates the opportunity to continue consultations with DHS to make our community safer and more attractive to future smart development.’’ That’s a quote from County Judge J.D. Salinas of Hidalgo County, as you know. So, I applaud the work that you have done and that you’ve been willing to do to meet us half way. I would also note that there are other things that we’ve been working on with the Department of Homeland Security: carrizo cane eradication, which will enhance the natural barrier that the Rio Grande River presents. It will provide greater visibility and access for Border Patrol in the hard-tocontrol locations. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 36 I think it’s a good example of how communication, cooperation, and consultation, particularly with those most immediately affected at the local level, can result in a positive outcome and one which, unfortunately, seems like it’s too rare these days. So, I think we ought to celebrate when they happen. Secretary CHERTOFF. I want to thank you, Senator, and also Senator Hutchison and Congressman Cuellar for working with us and helping us, and really the community was tremendous about not just coming up with a proposal, but coming up with their resources to cover their part of it. It is a win-win where we can solve two problems with the same effort. Senator CORNYN. Let me just ask you, since time is running out, about the Meridia initiative. I realize this is perhaps, not strictly speaking, all in your bailiwick. But, of course, this is a proposal by the administration to provide $1.4 billion in funding to Mexico to help with security in the Southwest border area. No funds have been appropriated yet, though the Bush administration requests funding for both, in fiscal year 2008, the Global War on Terror Supplemental Funding request, and the fiscal year 2009 budget. I have heard from a number of my constituents, law enforcement personnel, sheriffs, and the like, who would like the Federal Government to provide them some assistance so they can do their job. I would note that Governor Perry and the Texas legislature have been fairly generous about stepping up to fill the gap along the border in terms of border security efforts. But, frankly, this is a Federal responsibility and some of my constituents, law enforcement personnel, are scratching their heads, wondering why the U.S. Government would give $1.4 billion to Mexico for its security efforts when it’s unwilling to fund, in a supplemental fashion, local law enforcement’s efforts to fill that gap while the Federal Government catches up. So I would just ask for you to work with us as this proceeds. I’m going to ask other cabinet secretaries, General Mukasey and others, for their cooperation because I think my constituents have got a very good point. We need to keep our commitments to law enforcement officials on this side of the border, while we also need to do everything we can to support President Calderon and his effort to combat the violence, particularly among the drug cartels in Mexico. But Texas law enforcement officials have a good point, and I’d like to work with you on that. Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree. If I could just address this for one moment. I know it’s a little over the time. But obviously we have money which we’ve made available for locals through Operation Stone Garden. This Meridia initiative is very important because the President of Mexico is putting enormous effort, at considerable risk, to tackling these drug gangs and these smuggling organizations which are located in Mexico. Of course, as you know from your experience with law enforcement, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the best way to strike at a criminal organization is not the tentacles, but the head. So we’ve got to enable the Mexicans to do their part in controlling criminal organizations that threaten their government and threaten us. I think this is a terribly important national security program for both countries. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 37 Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I know we all are perhaps most focused on our own States, but have a national awareness of law enforcement challenges. But I will tell you that there is a huge problem along the border region because of the drug cartels battling it out, kidnappings, and assassinations of local law enforcement officials. Chairman LEAHY. I read some of the press accounts of that. It’s almost unbelievable in this day and age that such things go on. It’s a legitimate question you ask. It’s not being parochial at all when this is happening on your own border. Let me ask a question along that line on the northern border. We’re short on CBP agents along northern borders, especially States like my own Vermont. What steps are being taken to fill these staffing shortages along the northern border? In fact, we even have full staffing at all of our 325, 326 ports of entry. Secretary CHERTOFF. If you look back over time, we’ve been steadily increasing the number of Customs and Border Protection officers at the northern border. This past year we added about 150 additional officers, and we’ve got money in the 2008 and 2009 budgets to increase the number of inspectors. We’re also going to move one of the unmanned aerial vehicles up to the northern border to patrol along there. I think by this summer we’ll have our fifth air wing up. Chairman LEAHY. In particular, what 100? Your target, the promised target is short about 100? Secretary CHERTOFF. We’re at 3,396 officers currently, so I think we’d like to get somewhat more than that. But I think we’ve gone up in the last few years by about 1,000. Chairman LEAHY. When do you expect to have full staffing at all official ports of entry? Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know the answer to that. I’ll have to get back to you. Chairman LEAHY. The reason I ask, is in your budget, you requested $4 million to install permanent Border Patrol checkpoints far, far from the border on Vermont highways. This was brought back to me yesterday when one of our veterans’ organizations, a man who lives up on the Canadian border, goes down to a VA hospital to help our veterans basically as a volunteer. He drives from the Canadian border, drives a couple hours and he gets stopped. This happened a number of times. He gets stopped at your border crossing on Interstate 91 in Vermont. He hasn’t crossed any borders. A lot of Vermonters suffer the same thing. Is there any—it seems like kind of a cockamamie thing. If you’re trying to catch immigration violators, how does this do it? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Well, first of all, let me say, right now we’re using—we don’t have enough people up on the border. Right now, we’re using a temporary checkpoint. I don’t think there’s a— Chairman LEAHY. You’ve asked for $4 million to install a permanent checkpoint. Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t think there’s a current plan to put a permanent checkpoint in that location. Chairman LEAHY. Then why did you ask for the money? VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 38 Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know whether this refers to this location or someplace else, but I’m told the Border Patrol, right now, is still envisioning operating temporarily. But let me make sure. Chairman LEAHY. Well, they’re sure acting like it’s permanent. And not under your watch, but I told you about my own frustration, never leaving the country and being stopped hundreds of miles from the border. They made me step out of my car and prove my citizenship. The license plate, that’s No. 1, says ‘‘U.S. Senator’’ on it. It certainly has no influence, and I understand that. I shouldn’t be treated any differently than anybody else. But I also see Canadian families—you know, families—that are coming down there, coming down to visit our country, and they’re being made to take their suitcases out, children crying, everything else. It just seems like, my God, what are we doing? Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me—let me— Chairman LEAHY. Does this really make us safer? Secretary CHERTOFF. The answer to that is yes, and I’m going to give you— Chairman LEAHY. Good. These families are certainly going to be encouraged to do everything they can to point out people that may hurt our country. Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me give you facts and figures. In a 1week period in November, 2007 when we had the checkpoint open in Swanton, we apprehended 23 illegal aliens. Chairman LEAHY. Swanton is on the border. I’m talking about something that’s about— Secretary CHERTOFF. No. But in the sector. Chairman LEAHY.—a 3-hour drive from the border. Secretary CHERTOFF. This I–91 temporary checkpoint, which is about 100 miles from the border, apprehended 23 people at the checkpoint. Chairman LEAHY. Apprehended for what? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I’ll go into some of the examples. Chairman LEAHY. Well, give me the—how many of them were for immigration violations? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, there were 23 immigration violations and—and again, this is limited to a 1-week period— Chairman LEAHY. Had they crossed the border? Secretary CHERTOFF. Pardon? Yes, they crossed the border. Chairman LEAHY. Then why weren’t they caught at the border? Secretary CHERTOFF. Because— Chairman LEAHY. You all have people down at the other end. Secretary CHERTOFF. Because we don’t necessarily get everybody at the border. As you know, sometimes people cross the border between the ports of entry, but they wind up funneling through the checkpoint and we pick them up at the checkpoint. Chairman LEAHY. So we’re stopping tens of thousands of Vermonters to get these handful? What happened to them? Were they then put in jail? Secretary CHERTOFF. No, they’re then deported. But let me— Chairman LEAHY. Every one of them was deported? Secretary CHERTOFF. If they’re illegal, sure. Chairman LEAHY. So of those people—now, let’s be sure on this. Of those people you apprehended, you’re saying that most of them VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 39 were illegal immigrants. You apprehended in November, that 1 month, and they were all deported? Secretary CHERTOFF. There were 23 illegal immigrants who were apprehended at the checkpoint. Chairman LEAHY. In 1 month? Secretary CHERTOFF. In, actually, a 1-week period. Chairman LEAHY. One week. And every single one of them was deported? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, they’re supposed to be, unless they have a legal claim, like an asylum claim. Chairman LEAHY. Well, can you give me those? Secretary CHERTOFF. I will get you— Chairman LEAHY. Because— Secretary CHERTOFF. But, Mr. Chairman, let me finish. Because it’s not just illegal aliens. At various times at this particular checkpoint we arrested, for example, a native and citizen of Guatemala who had felony convictions for sexual assault of a child. We found a native and citizen of Canada at the checkpoint smuggling 95 pounds of marijuana. We had an individual, a national of Guatemala and Canadian who we discovered was out on bond for aggravated sexual assault. We had a national of Korea who was transporting four illegal aliens. We had a citizen of Canada transporting 150 pounds of marijuana. So, I mean, we are picking up drug dealers and other people at the checkpoints. Chairman LEAHY. But isn’t that something the State police should be doing, the sheriffs? I mean, I’m thinking if somebody really wanted to go down, it sounds to me like you’re getting the idiots, because there are dozens and dozens of roads you could go down if you really wanted to get down there. Secretary CHERTOFF. I have two short answers to that. One is, we do do side patrols. Second—and I know you know this, Mr. Chairman, because you were a U.S. Attorney—you do get idiots. Chairman LEAHY. I was a State’s Attorney. But go ahead. Secretary CHERTOFF. But the truth of the matter is, it’s worth getting the idiots who are smuggling marijuana or who are child molesters. Chairman LEAHY. Well, yes. Secretary CHERTOFF. That takes some of the— Chairman LEAHY. But if they don’t show up on the border where people should show up—because I noticed in your final rule that DHS and the State Department issued last week on WHTI, it dismissed all the comments calling for additional outreach of business, travelers, border residents. The Travel Industry Association, Travel Business Round Table, went so far as to say the new rules are not accompanied by a credible plan to inform travelers of changing requirements. I listen to radio stations out of Montreal saying, don’t go into Vermont or Upstate New York, the lines are an hour, 2 hours, 3 hours long. Spend your money in Canada. We’re spending our money putting these checkpoints that really end up infuriating people 100 miles or more from the border. Tell me, let me just ask one more thing about that. We’re going to have additional staffing on Canadian holidays when the U.S. ports of entry have been particularly overwhelmed. We have May 23, 24, 25 which is Victoria Day weekend holiday; June 24, St. VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 40 Jean Baptiste Day in Quebec; July 1, Canada Day; July 19, August 3, construction holidays in Canada. We’re going to have extra—are we going to prepare for those? Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, we do generally. Chairman LEAHY. Or does it only make a difference if it’s our holiday? Secretary CHERTOFF. No. We do generally actually mind any event, whether it’s a holiday or a sporting event. And, you know, my instruction and the Border Patrol’s undertaking has been to make sure we surge our capability when we think there’s going to be heavy travel because of some holiday or event. And I don’t want to be mistaking this suggestion as we don’t want to continue to hire. We did put money in the budget for 2009 for additional inspectors. We—you know, my— Chairman LEAHY. You put money in the budget for a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 91. Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, all I can tell you is, the current plan of the Border Patrol is to have—it’s temporary. But I—if you’re asking me whether I think checkpoints add value— Chairman LEAHY. It’s what your budget says. Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I don’t have it in front of me so I don’t know what the thinking was. Chairman LEAHY. Four million dollars. Secretary CHERTOFF. They changed their thinking. Here’s the bottom line: having checkpoints does make sense. It is a useful tool. It’s not an alternative to manning the ports of entry, but it recognizes the fact that people come between the ports. Chairman LEAHY. So what you’re saying is, in a little State like mine, everybody should just be stopped going down the Interstate, no matter whether they’re going to visit a sick relative at the VA hospital or anything like that. We’re all sort of presumed guilty until we prove ourselves innocent? Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I’m saying that— Chairman LEAHY. It sounds like Big Brother gone awry. Secretary CHERTOFF. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that—I mean, we have found drug smugglers, child molesters. Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Secretary, we can—you can set up a road block on the George Washington Parkway and stop every single car coming in every single day. You’re going to find some. Does that make it a sensible thing to do? Everything would come to a screeching halt around here. You could put a road block halfway across the Wilson Bridge in this area. Secretary CHERTOFF. I guess I’d answer you, Mr. Chairman, this way. Where I used to come from, from time to time, they manned roadblocks for drunk drivers. Now, the vast majority of people who were stopped were not intoxicated, but the fact is that they did catch people who were intoxicated. Chairman LEAHY. Those were temporary roadblocks. We’re talking about a permanent installation. Secretary CHERTOFF. But what I’ve indicated to you is the Border Patrol’s current plan is to not operate it all the time. If the question is whether we ought to—how often we ought to do it or things of that sort, I mean, those are operational issues. If the question VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 41 is, as a matter of principle, does it make sense to have these things, I have to tell you that I think it does make sense. Chairman LEAHY. Well, then we have hundreds of roads. I mean, we have dozens and dozens of roads you can take from the Canadian border to get down to either New York or Massachusetts from Canada. Why don’t you just put roadblocks on every one of them and Federalize Vermont? Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we’re limited by law to the 100 miles closest to the border. We pick a place— Chairman LEAHY. You’ve got dozens of roads. I mean, I’ve got a dirt road that goes in front of my house in Middlesex, Vermont. Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Right. Chairman LEAHY. That’s within 100 miles of the Canadian border. Am I going to see a roadblock up there? Secretary CHERTOFF. Now, we pick a road which the Border Patrol— Chairman LEAHY. Oh. Thank you. Secretary CHERTOFF. We pick a road which the Border Patrol thinks is likely to be a funnel through which people will come. Chairman LEAHY. Well, we’ve had Canadians come up to my house in Vermont. Some of them are related to my wife. Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, that’s great. But I’m not sure what your point is, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LEAHY. I think you understand my point. My time has really been used up and I’m going to yield to Senator Feingold. I just—well. Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was enjoying the exchange. Mr. Secretary, you’ve had a long morning, so let me just get right to these questions. Thank you for your service. In February, the Washington Post reported that Customs agents have been searching the cell phones and laptops of U.S. citizens and international business travelers coming across the border and then copying the contents. In court papers, the government has taken the position that a laptop is just a ‘‘closed container’’ like a suitcase or a purse, and examining the contents of a laptop to learn the thoughts of the traveler is no different from examining a traveler’s suitcase to see if it contains drugs or a weapon. But the Supreme Court has held that more intrusive border searches that implicate ‘‘dignity and privacy interests of the person being searched’’ can take place only if there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Has DHS conducted searches of the contents of laptops and cell phones belonging to U.S. citizens in cases where the Agency did not first determine that there was a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing? Secretary CHERTOFF. First of all, I think that the cases you’re talking about involving reasonable suspicion applies to body searches. I think the searches with respect to documents at the border, whether they’re reduced to paper form or electronic form, don’t necessarily require a reasonable suspicion requirement. We’re entitled to—I think copying requires a slightly higher requirement. So the short answer—but of course, as a matter of practice, we only do it where there’s a reasonable suspicion because we VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 42 don’t do it to everybody. So with that suggestion there’s a legal requirement, I think, that as a practical matter, when we look at a laptop or papers or something, it’s because somebody is in secondary, which means by definition that we have a reasonable suspicion that is sufficient to— Senator FEINGOLD. So even though you’re not required to use that standard, according to your statements, you are, in effect, using that standard? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think—I believe, in practice, that’s what’s happening. Senator FEINGOLD. In your view, if a person’s laptop contains diaries, personal letters, medical information, financial records, and photos, does a search of those contents by the government implicate any dignity or privacy concerns? Secretary CHERTOFF. From a legal standpoint, if you’re asking me do you need probable cause, the answer to that is no, at the border. Senator FEINGOLD. I didn’t ask you that. I asked you whether it implicates any dignity or privacy concerns. Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. There are absolutely privacy concerns. Therefore, we only look to the extent necessary to satisfy ourselves, for example, that there’s not child pornography or, as we’ve occasionally found, instructions for how to build remote IEDs. But if, after looking at the material there’s nothing in there that is either contraband or indicative of a threat, then we respect the privacy and we return the item to the individual. Senator FEINGOLD. But does DHS ever copy or otherwise retain the contents of— Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe we copy— Senator FEINGOLD. Let me just finish the question. Secretary CHERTOFF. OK. Senator FEINGOLD. Retain the contents of a person’s laptop during a search. Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe that there are two types of things that happen. Sometimes if something is in a foreign language and needs to be translated or something of that sort, we make a copy for purposes of translation. If it turns out to be benign, we then destroy it. I think you understand that is probable cause. If we’re going to seize it because it is illegal—contraband, child pornography—I think at that point, I believe—I’ll verify it, but I believe— we use a probable cause standard. Senator FEINGOLD. And then what sorts of retention or destruction policies are in place for information that had been copied? Secretary CHERTOFF. If it’s not pertinent to a violation of the law, in other words, benign, it’s destroyed. It’s either returned or it’s destroyed if we made a copy for purposes of, you know, translation. If it’s, in fact, contraband or part of a criminal case, then it gets retained, like any evidence would be when it’s seized, in accordance to law. Senator FEINGOLD. Accoring to the Washington Post, many of the people who have been subject to these searches are travelers of Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian background or descent, including U.S. citizens. Also, according to the Post, a Customs training guide states that ‘‘It is permissible and indeed advisable VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 43 to consider an individual’s connections to countries that are associated with significant terrorist activity.’’ I think the word ‘‘connections’’ is quite vague, but I assume that is deliberate. So let me ask you, if a U.S. citizen traveler is of Pakistani descent, does DHS consider that to constitute a ‘‘connection’’ to Pakistan, which is, of course, a country that is associated with significant terrorist activity? Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I think the issue of connections to a nation have to do with foreigners. However, that doesn’t exclude the fact that if a person, a U.S. citizen, had a travel pattern that suggested, on an individualized basis, that they had something that needed to be looked at more closely, we would certainly take that into account. But the mere fact that someone is a U.S. citizen of any ethnic group is not a factor in— Senator FEINGOLD. So being Pakistani alone would not be a trigger? Secretary CHERTOFF. If you are a Pakistani national, that might be a consideration, as with any foreign nationality. But that would be, for example, a citizen of another country. U.S. citizens are not treated differently based upon their ethnic background, but their individualized behavior could be a basis for singling them out, or if they matched a physical description it could be a basis for singling them out. Senator FEINGOLD. And you’re saying it’s narrowed to those circumstances? Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, yes, that’s basically— Senator FEINGOLD. I would like whatever assurances you can provide that that’s the case, because I’ve heard horror stories that suggest otherwise, but I have not been able to personally document them. Secretary CHERTOFF. That’s—I’m giving you—I’m telling you what the policy is. Can I tell you that no one has ever transgressed? I mean, my experience with law enforcement suggests that I wouldn’t be able to give you that assurance. But that’s the policy. Senator FEINGOLD. Another issue. The REAL ID regulations require that all REAL ID cards use the same type of machine-readable bar code to store personal information on those cards. That means that anyone who has a machine that can read that bar code can collect the personal information on REAL ID cards and log individuals’ activities. Sometimes this is called skimming. It means government or private entities can track Americans’ locations and activities over time. I think this is a significant privacy issue. I’ve heard concerns that all this information could even end up being for sale. Yet, the DHS regulations do not prohibit private sector use of this information or limit its use to law enforcement purposes. It just leaves it to the States to deal with the problem. Why is DHS not taking more proactive steps to address it? Secretary CHERTOFF. I disagree with the characterization of what you can do with a Machine Readable Zone. I think that’s dead wrong. I think there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Let me tell you what a Machine Readable Zone has. It has exactly the same information as on the face of the license, therefore you can either VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 44 read it with an MRZ read or you can read it with your eyes. You cannot skim a Machine Readable Zone because skimming, to the extent it occurs, requires an RFID chip, and a Machine Readable Zone is not an RFID chip. We are not requiring RFID chips. So there is no way you could track someone’s comings and goings with a driver’s license unless you followed them around, which you can do without the REAL ID. So I have to say the idea that—and I’ve read this over and over again, I’ve seen the ACLU say it, and it’s a blatant falsehood. It is not the case that the REAL ID license, without the RFID, can be used to track people. There is a way to track people. If I hacked into your credit card account, I could track you based on every time you use your credit card. But that has nothing to do with us. Senator FEINGOLD. You can track and record this much more easily than if it were not on a bar code. Isn’t that true? Secretary CHERTOFF. I disagree with that. Senator FEINGOLD. You don’t think that’s true? Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think that’s true. Senator FEINGOLD. Well, we’ll take this up on another occasion. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Secretary, it’s been a long day. I won’t go into questions on the— well, first, I should ask you, do you want to say anything further before I conclude? Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I’m ready for lunch. Chairman LEAHY. You’ve had so much fun, you don’t want to continue? Secretary CHERTOFF. It’s been fun, but all good things must come to an end. Chairman LEAHY. I understand. I hope the same about the permanent $4 million installation on I–91. But moving along, I was going to ask you questions about extending EB–5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program that expires in September. I hope you will work with me to continue it beyond September. It’s an important program. All States can continue to benefit from the job creation and capital investment the program brings. At a time that we’re going into a recession, it’s good to have a program that actually does create jobs. As we get closer to the now-delayed implementation of WHTI, I hope the Department will listen to the warnings from those who live and work on our northern border: this must be done right. I can give you anecdotal stories, but you have to understand, this is the matter. Those of us along the northern border feel very strongly. It’s not a Democratic or Republican view, it’s the view of all of us, businesses that go back and forth, the travel industry, those who have families there, even to the extent of having to worry about one town where the border comes down the middle of the road. There are questions about whether somebody can cross the road to baby-sit their relatives’ children, things like this. Let’s do it right. Canada is a great country. We share a lot of our culture in comity with them. I would like to see more money spent to improve our intelligence on both sides of the border for those who are threats and who lose hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45 of jobs because we do something that may be more symbolic than substantive. I appreciate the fact, on a very newsworthy case, that you have acted upon that. I would hope that you would push back in your own Department to find out how many other cases that have not made the news, have not been researched by the Washington Post, doing the work that should have been done by somebody in DHS that’s looked at. I’d like to know what’s happening on the Katrina trailers, why we still have those that are harmful to people’s health long after that time. It’s been a terrible failure. I believe that the hundreds of thousands of legal, permanent residents who are in danger of not being naturalized in time to vote in November—Senator Kennedy used a figure of over half a million. I want them to know that they have a firm commitment from their Federal Government that there’s a reality of their applications being processed in time. Obviously, we all understand if you have somebody in there who’s made a false application or something, it won’t go through. But let us assume most of them are trying to follow the law. One of the greatest things, I know, when my grandparents told me after they became citizens in this country, having left Italy where they really didn’t have a chance to vote, how great it was to be able to vote. I suspect the same feeling is here, that these people want to vote. You’ve noted you had firsthand experience how important hard-fought, comprehensive immigration was. I sat in many of those meetings with you, as you know, Mr. Secretary. I also told the President I completely agreed with him on his effort for comprehensive immigration reform. I wish that it had gone through. But I think, in light of your unprecedented enforcement activities and these fee increases, we should have been better prepared for the huge increase in applications, better prepared to deal with it in a timely manner. Now, in answer to the question of Senator Feingold, you, I think, are down-playing some of the severity of the REAL ID mandate. I think it would be better to repeal that. It was put in with pressure from the administration. You speak of a congressional mandate, but that was slammed through on legislation that was called ‘‘must pass’’, with strong support from the administration. I think we ought to engage in a fair, more productive negotiated rulemaking with the States. It would be better than to override environmental laws, override States’ rights, and all these other things. Maybe people want to have a national ID card; in my State, they don’t. But maybe that’s what we’re coming to. I hope not. But before we tell the States, do it this way, do it our way or no way, and oh, by the way, increase your taxes so you can pay for this thing we’re mandating, I think there’s a better way, I really do. So, I’ll pass that on for what it’s worth. Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond on the WHTI thing. I think we are as committed as you are to try to do this seamlessly. I think we have the capability to do it. I think now we’ve agreed upon a June, 2009 deadline. We’ve got the investments made in a number of States to do the driver’s licenses. The Canadians are now putting money into this. So I’m hopeful, if we can now have a unity of effort to get this done, we can wind up VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 46 in a little over a year with something that will not only be more secure, but actually is going to speed it up at the border. Chairman LEAHY. Well, let’s talk about this driver’s license. Let me give you, a group of school kids come down on a school bus. Secretary CHERTOFF. We’ve exempted them. We actually said that— Chairman LEAHY. What about the senior citizen who never got a driver’s license? Secretary CHERTOFF. You know, driver’s license—we’re accepting—a lot of States have a non-driver’s ID. We’re accepting that. I think what we have done, and this has been an iterative process with not only the States, but with the Provinces and with the Canadian government, I think we have a reasonable, practical, and relatively inexpensive plan. I come back to, you know, we had a 9/ 11 Commission, we spent I don’t know how much money having them do their report. This is one of their top recommendations. I kind of committed to doing this. I think we’re doing it in the right way. I think that if we are consistent in our message, we’re going to get there and everyone is going to be better off. I think we’re going to make it quicker to cross the border because it will actually speed the time that every individual has to spend at a border post. So I think I’m with you in wanting to keep the open flow of trade and traffic. I just want to make sure we’re redeeming the promise we made on the 9/11 recommendation. Chairman LEAHY. Well, I expect we’ll have more conversations about this before we get there. Secretary CHERTOFF. I’m sure we will. Chairman LEAHY. The legislation requires us to wait until July of 2009, with bipartisan legislation, as you know, the Leahy-Stevens legislation. We have many other Senators from both parties that co-sponsored. I also hope that someone’s looking at the situation, wearing my other hat as the Chairman of the Subcommittee that helps to fund the State Department, that we not end up with computers that cannot talk to each other. As you know, that was the original concern. It won’t do any good if you work out the WHTI problem and then they stop the second line and say, well, now, wait a minute. I don’t care what you went through there, now you’ve got to go through it all over again. I think we are citizens of a very great and wonderful country. A lot of people around the world think that we have suddenly become xenophobic, and almost arrogant in the way we treat people coming here. I have a lot of friends overseas who tell me, look, we’d love to go to the United States. Our euro is worth so much more because your dollar has slipped so badly. But we just don’t want to go through the hassle. We don’t want to be shouted at as we’re going through, treated like we’re some kind of criminals going through Immigration, going through—we finally get a mile away from wherever our port of entry, and everybody’s very, very nice. But we’re made to feel like some kind of criminals as we go through. I’ve seen this myself with the way people have been treated. If I’m recognized, everybody’s very nice to me. But that’s not the way it should be. They should also be nice to the person who’s coming VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 47 in from Italy, or Germany, or Ireland, or wherever else ahead of me. In fact, I think it’s even worse that they’re really giving somebody—just, frankly, berating them for maybe a bit of a language problem, berating them, and then all of a sudden being very nice to me. I think that’s even worse. So, I pass that on for what it’s worth. Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with you. Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LEAHY. We stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] [Question and answers and submissions for the record follow.] VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.001 48 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.002 49 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.003 50 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.004 51 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.005 52 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.006 53 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.007 54 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.008 55 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.009 56 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.010 57 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.011 58 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.012 59 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.013 60 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.014 61 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.015 62 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.016 63 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.017 64 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.018 65 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.019 66 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.020 67 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.021 68 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.022 69 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.023 70 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.024 71 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.025 72 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.026 73 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.027 74 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.028 75 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.029 76 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.030 77 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.031 78 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.032 79 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.033 80 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.034 81 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.035 82 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.036 83 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.037 84 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.038 85 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.039 86 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.040 87 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.041 88 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.042 89 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.043 90 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.044 91 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.045 92 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.046 93 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.047 94 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.048 95 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.049 96 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.050 97 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.051 98 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.052 99 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.053 100 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.054 101 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.055 102 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.056 103 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.057 104 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.058 105 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.059 106 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.060 107 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.061 108 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.062 109 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.063 110 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.064 111 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.065 112 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.066 113 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.067 114 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.068 115 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.069 116 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.070 117 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.071 118 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.072 119 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.073 120 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.074 121 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.075 122 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.076 123 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.077 124 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.078 125 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.079 126 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.080 127 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.081 128 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.082 129 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.083 130 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.084 131 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.085 132 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.086 133 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.087 134 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.088 135 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.089 136 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.090 137 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.091 138 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.092 139 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.093 140 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.094 141 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.095 142 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.096 143 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.097 144 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.098 145 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.099 146 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.100 147 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.101 148 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.102 149 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.103 150 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.104 151 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.105 152 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.106 153 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.107 154 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.108 155 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.109 156 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.110 157 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.111 158 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.112 159 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.113 160 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.114 161 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.115 162 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.116 163 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.117 164 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.118 165 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.119 166 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.120 167 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.121 168 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.122 169 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.123 170 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.124 171 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.125 172 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.126 173 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.127 174 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.128 175 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.129 176 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.130 177 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.131 178 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.132 179 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.133 180 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.134 181 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.135 182 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.136 183 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.137 184 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.138 185 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.139 186 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.140 187 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.141 188 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.142 189 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.143 190 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.144 191 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.145 192 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.146 193 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.147 194 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.148 195 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.149 196 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.150 197 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.151 198 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.152 199 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.153 200 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.154 201 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.155 202 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.156 203 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.157 204 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.158 205 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.159 206 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.160 207 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.161 208 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.162 209 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.163 210 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.164 211 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.165 212 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.166 213 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.167 214 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.168 215 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.169 216 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.170 217 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.171 218 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.172 219 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.173 220 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.174 221 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.175 222 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.176 223 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.177 224 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.178 225 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.179 226 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.180 227 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.181 228 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.182 229 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.183 230 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.184 231 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.185 232 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.186 233 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.187 234 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.188 235 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.189 236 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.190 237 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.191 238 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.192 239 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.193 240 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.194 241 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.195 242 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.196 243 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.197 244 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.198 245 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.199 246 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.200 247 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.201 248 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.202 249 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.203 250 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.204 251 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.205 252 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.206 253 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.207 254 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.208 255 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.209 256 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.210 257 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.211 258 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.212 259 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.213 260 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.214 261 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.215 262 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.216 263 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.217 264 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.218 265 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.219 266 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.220 267 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.221 268 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.222 269 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.223 270 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.224 271 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.225 272 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.226 273 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.227 274 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.228 275 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.229 276 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.230 277 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.231 278 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.232 279 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.233 280 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.234 281 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.235 282 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.236 283 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.237 284 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.238 285 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.239 286 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.240 287 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.241 288 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.242 289 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.243 290 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.244 291 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.245 292 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.246 293 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.247 294 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.248 295 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.249 296 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.250 297 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00304 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.251 298 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.252 299 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.253 300 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.254 301 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.255 302 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.256 303 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.257 304 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.258 305 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.259 306 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.260 307 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.261 308 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.262 309 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.263 310 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.264 311 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.265 312 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.266 313 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00320 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.267 314 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.268 315 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.269 316 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.270 317 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.271 318 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.272 319 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.273 320 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.274 321 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.275 322 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.276 323 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.277 324 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.278 325 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.279 326 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00333 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.280 327 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.281 328 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.282 329 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.283 330 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.284 331 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.285 332 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.286 333 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.287 334 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.288 335 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.289 336 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.290 337 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.291 338 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.292 339 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.293 340 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.294 341 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.295 342 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00349 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.296 343 344 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 45594.297 Æ