U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–411 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–875 

PROHIBITING OBSCENE ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS 

IN THE WAKE OF UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–108 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRIAN A. BENZCOWSKI, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 30 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 1 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 47 

WITNESSES 

Perry, Nancy, Vice President for Government Affairs, The Humane Society 

of the United States, Washington, DC ............................................................... 3 

Volkan, Kevin, Chair and Professor of Psychology, California State University 

Channel Islands, Camarillo, California .............................................................. 4 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington 

Legislative Office and Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel, Washington, DC, statement ........................................................... 10 

Animal Welfare Institute, Cathy Liss, President, Washington, DC, letter ........ 15 

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, David LaBahn, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Washington, DC, letter ......................................................... 16 

Ballenger, J. Scott, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Burr, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 28 

Hanna, Cheryl, Professor, Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 35 

Perry, Nancy, Vice President for Government Affairs, The Humane Society 

of the United States, Washington, DC, statement ............................................ 48 

Addendum A ..................................................................................................... 56 

Addendum B ..................................................................................................... 84 

Suffolk County S.P.C.A., Roy Gross, Chief of Department, Smithtown, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 91 

Volkan, Kevin, Chair and Professor of Psychology, California State University 

Channel Islands, Camarillo, California, statement ........................................... 93 

(1) 

PROHIBITING OBSCENE ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS IN THE WAKE OF UNITED STATES V. 

STEVENS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD– 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl, presiding. 

Present: Senator Kyl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. This hearing before the Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary will come to order. I am Senator Jon Kyl. I am a member 

of the minority but have worked with the majority to ensure that 

this hearing can be held whether or not members of the majority 

are here. So I will conduct the hearing unless a member of the majority arrives. 

I want to thank everyone for being here. This is an important 

hearing on prohibiting obscene animal crush videos in the wake of 

the U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Stevens. Let me make a brief 

opening statement. Then I will swear in our two witnesses, and I 

look forward to their testimony. 

Animal crush videos depict some of the most extreme animal cruelty in existence. Typical animal crush videos feature women, often 

clad in high heels, crushing live, helpless animals to death with 

their feet. The videos are usually filmed from an angle that conceals the perpetrator’s identity. The videos are said to appeal to a 

sick subset of persons with a specific sexual fetish. 

Congress banned the creation or distribution of animal crush videos in 1999 with the enactment of 18 U.S.C. Section 48. In April 

of this year, however, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. 

Stevens struck down the 1999 Act on First Amendment grounds, 

holding that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and that 

it applied to a substantial amount of protected speech. In other 

words, Section 48 was so broadly worded, the Court said its enforcement could reach many kinds of portrayals that did not even 

involve cruelty and might not involve illegal activity, including 

hunting videos that are widely distributed and have some redeeming social value. 

The Stevens case did not involve crush videos, and the Court specifically stated that it was not deciding whether a statute limited 

2 

to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would 

be constitutional. Instead, it left the door open for Congress to 

enact a narrowly tailored ban on animal crush videos that passes 

constitutional muster. 

In the wake of the Stevens case, crush videos are again being 

marketed and sold on the Internet, the primary mechanism for 

their distribution in interstate and foreign commerce. Despite the 

fact that every State and the District of Columbia have animal cruelty laws, the proliferation of animal crush videos is a problem that 

cannot adequately be addressed by them. A number of challenges 

to prosecution exist, including difficulties in determining when and 

where the crimes occurred and in identifying the perpetrator since 

feet and the crushing of the animals are usually the only images 

on the video. 

Concerned about this recent proliferation and the inadequacy of 

State animal cruelty laws to address the problem, the House took 

a first crack at a new ban by passing the Prevention of Interstate 

Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010, H.R. 5566, sponsored by Representative Gallegly, who has been a leader in fighting 

animal cruelty. I am working with him and my colleagues Senators 

Merkley and Burr in the Senate here with this Committee to be 

sure that we can craft a ban that prohibits this extreme animal 

cruelty that will survive judicial scrutiny. 

Today the Committee will receive testimony from two witnesses: 

Nancy Perry, who is Vice President for Government Affairs for the 

Humane Society of the United States; and Dr. Kevin Volkan, a psychologist and professor at California State University Channel Islands. As we all know, the Humane Society has been a longstanding champion against animal cruelty and is intimately familiar with the problem of animal crush videos. Dr. Volkan is an expert in atypical psychopathology. He will help us to understand 

more fully the sexual component of animal crush videos. 

So let me now ask the two of you to stand and be sworn. Do you 

swear that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Ms. PERRY. I do. 

Mr. VOLKAN. I do. 

Senator KYL. I thank you and I appreciate your willingness to 

come here to help edify the Committee. The fact that there are not 

other members here does not signify a lack of interest as much as 

the fact that we are pulled and tugged in a lot of different directions. I will be talking to my colleagues about this, and certainly 

the transcript will be available for everyone, including the answers 

to the questions, and others will have an opportunity to ask you 

questions for a few days after the hearing, and I would appreciate 

your being willing to try to respond to those questions. 

Ms. Perry, let me start with you, and then Dr. Volkan, and then 

I will have some questions for the two of you. Thank you. 

3 

STATEMENT OF NANCY PERRY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED 

STATES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. PERRY. Thank you so much, Senator Kyl. I really appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today. 

As you said, my name is Nancy Perry. I am Vice President of 

Government Affairs for the Humane Society of the United States. 

We are the nation’s largest animal protection organization, with 

more than 11 million supporters nationwide. That translates to 1 

in every 28 Americans, and as you have mentioned, we have been 

working to address animal cruelty for more than 50 years now as 

an organization, and for more than a decade we have been focusing 

on cracking down on these animal crush videos. 

It is absolutely critical that we remedy this dire situation involving the worst cruelty we have ever uncovered. It is shocking. It is 

abhorrent. It is the stuff that nightmares are made of, as many 

people in this room will attest. And just so everyone knows what 

we are talking about, I will just explain yet again what a crush 

video is. 

A typical animal crush video will show a scantily clad, highheeled woman stomping, squishing, and impaling animals to death. 

The animals are often secured so they cannot escape, but are free 

enough to move so that their writhing in agony is clear to the viewer. This sickening torment is drawn out for many minutes intentionally and even for hours, during which time the animal’s cries, 

moans, and squeals are actually highlighted along with their excretions of blood, urine, intestines, and even organs as they are 

crushed to death. 

Until recently, the sale of videos like this was illegal. In 1999, 

as you have mentioned, Congress banned crush video sales, and 

they all but disappeared from the Internet. However, recent court 

decisions struck down that law, creating a resurgence of animal 

crush videos on the Internet. 

Our 2009 investigation found that videos with rabbits, puppies, 

kittens, and other animals are readily available for sale on the 

Internet. Crush viewers can even place custom orders, articulating 

which type of animal they want to see tortured and what type of 

torture they want to see. 

This July, we received a tip from a Russian investigator, who found numerous crush videos for purchase for as little as $80 using 

PayPal and Western Union. These clips show young girls maiming 

and killing dogs, goats, monkeys, rabbits, and pigs. And I apologize, but it is important that we hear at least one description of 

a video that is for sale online today. 

A smiling girl in stilettos pokes her sharp heel through a live 

dog’s eye socket. The dog’s front legs are tied behind his back and 

his mouth is tied shut, but he screams and screams in horrendous 

pain as the girl relentlessly stabs her heel through his eye socket. 

At one point, her heel goes all the way in and makes a cracking 

sound, and the dog is still alive and screaming. 

These videos appeal to a particular sexual deviancy. The women 

carrying out the slow, deliberate torture often talk to the animals 

in a dominatrix patter or other sexual tones. Camera angles are 

used to create the sensation for the viewer that they are in the 

4 

place of the tortured animal, looking up at the woman’s body, keying into a crush fantasy. 

My written testimony contains a host of such sickening examples 

and provides ample evidence of the sexual and cruel nature of 

these videos. Most importantly today, this resurgence is real and 

requires a response from Congress to spare the lives of thousands 

of animals waiting right now in torture dens until their number is 

up. 

The HSUS worked closely with sponsors in the House to develop 

anti-crush legislation soon after the Supreme Court decision, and 

we are pleased that the House quickly passed H.R. 5566 by an 

overwhelming vote of 416–3 this July. So now it is up to the Senate 

and your leadership to move quickly to prevent the horrendous torture of more animals. 

The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, whose letter I would 

like to submit for the record today, states: ‘‘Those who produce and 

market these videos and those who carry out the animal cruelty in 

the videos do so in order to profit from appealing to the prurient 

interests of those with a sexual fetish involving specific forms of 

animal cruelty and suffering. The acts of animal cruelty captured 

on film would likely not be committed but for the production of the 

crush videos that can bring a profit in interstate commerce.’’ 

We know that this is one area where a law on the books can 

make an immediate and tangible difference, and so we truly appreciate your efforts and your leadership. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perry appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

Professor Volkan. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN VOLKAN, CHAIR AND PROFESSOR OF 

PSYCHOLOGY, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL 

ISLANDS, CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. VOLKAN. Thank you, Senator Kyl, for inviting me here today 

to testify. I am here today with my colleague Dr. Neil Rocklin, who 

is sitting behind me, who co-authored the written testimony. 

My testimony today will focus on explaining the sexual nature of 

crush paraphilias and describing how crush videos are sexual in 

nature and that those who watch crush videos do so to obtain sexual gratification. And I should mention that paraphilia is the technically correct term. A lot of time these are called crush fetishes, 

but fetish is really a type of paraphilia. So I will be referring to 

them as paraphilias throughout. 

Paraphilias are sexual disorders that involve recurrent and intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors related to 

non-human objects, including animals, non-consenting persons or 

children, and the suffering and/or humiliation of oneself or a partner. Generally, to be considered pathological, paraphilias should result in clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning. 

The following specific paraphilias are related to crush videos, and 

these would include fetishes, sexual sadism, and sexual masochism, 

5 

and I will talk a little bit about each of these. In my professional 

opinion, the crush paraphilia and crush videos contain elements of 

these specific forms of paraphilia in varying degrees, and I believe 

that crush paraphilia and crush videos are clearly sexual in nature. 

A fetish is a strong recurrent sexual attraction to a non-living object. The most common fetish objects are clothing such as underwear, shoes, boots, et cetera. With regard to crush paraphilia, the 

fetish aspect is most likely related to the object that is doing the 

crushing—it is usually a foot or a shoe—but can also be other 

things. Sometimes it can be the buttocks or a plank of wood, or in 

one case even a car. The crush paraphilia can be thought of as an 

extreme version of something like a foot fetish where individuals 

with the paraphilia derive sexual pleasure from watching the object 

of their desire crushing a living creature to death. 

Sexual sadism is where sexual gratification is achieved through 

the fantasy of harming a partner or as a consequence of directly 

subjecting a partner to pain or humiliation. Typically, sexual sadism involves a human partner. Obviously, in the case of crush 

paraphilia, the partner is an animal, of course, who is non-consenting. The animals used for sadistic purposes range from insects 

to larger mammals such as dogs, and many crush videos use small 

mammals such as mice, rats, puppies, and kittens. But regardless 

of the victim, the causes and the purposes and the ends of these 

crush videos are still the same. 

It should also be mentioned that those involved in the creation 

and distribution of crush videos may themselves be sadists. It 

should be noted that there is a well-established relationship between animal sadism, antisocial personality disorder, which used to 

be called sociopathy, and violent crime. Sadistic acts perpetrated 

against animals may be an important indicator of someone who is 

capable of violent crime against human beings. 

Sexual masochism is a feeling of sexual arousal or excitement resulting from receiving pain, suffering, or humiliation. Many of 

those involved in crush paraphilia take sexual pleasure in being 

crushed, squashed, or being put under pressure. Masochists often 

suffer from personality disorders in which they are only able to experience feelings in the context of situations where they are hurt 

or in pain. In terms of crush paraphilia, the masochistic aspect is 

an identification with the animals being tortured or killed, actually 

seeing themselves as the animal being crushed, and these individuals obtain sexual gratification through this identification. 

It should be mentioned, like other paraphilias, crush paraphilia 

primarily involve men, and crush videos primarily appeal to men 

and are of most interest when the person doing the crushing is a 

woman. The theoretical reasons for this are outlined in my written 

testimony. 

I would like to mention treatment. Typically, people who have a 

paraphilia do not seek treatment unless the paraphilia has resulted 

in legal consequences—in other words, unless they have been arrested and forced to go into treatment by the court. Paraphilias, especially the more egregious types such as pedophilia, are notoriously difficult to treat with high rates of relapse. One of the problems with successfully treating individuals with paraphilia is that 

they have a high rate of co-morbid mental disorders. Given the 

6 

rather more primitive nature of the crush paraphilia and its high 

level of social unacceptability, it is likely that most individuals involved with crush paraphilia will not seek treatment or even be 

willing to acknowledge that they engage in this activity. These 

characteristics would indicate that there would be a strong commercial market for crush videos that can be watched in secret. 

I would like to conclude. Human males with certain abnormal 

psychological profiles have the capacity to learn to become sexually 

aroused by watching crush videos. The treatment prognosis for 

those involved in crush videos is very poor. Treatment is not likely 

to prevent the acquisition of a crush paraphilia, curb the current 

practice of this paraphilia, or prevent a relapse. Given the above 

characteristics associated with crush paraphilia, I believe that a 

prohibition on the sale of crush videos is one of the few ways in 

which the practice of crush paraphilias can be reduced. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Volkan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you both very much. It is difficult to listen 

to testimony like this. It is obviously essential, not only to stop 

something that is enormously cruel to animals, but also to try to 

find ways to help those who may suffer from the disorders that you 

have discussed. 

The Supreme Court obviously needs to be very careful about its 

definitions of speech to ensure that real speech is not unduly inhibited and, thus, the reason for, I think, the limited decision that it 

rendered. But it has also afforded us the opportunity, if we make 

the right case for the right kind of statute, to have such a statute 

upheld. 

While we were working with the House of Representatives, we 

wanted to have the opportunity to perhaps refine even more the 

House legislation. I think because of the large vote in the House, 

if we make changes that are specifically designed to ensure that 

the bill will both be effective and will be upheld by the courts, that 

we should not have difficulty in getting House concurrence in that. 

So it will be our effort here using your testimony and additional 

aspects of the record to build the case for a very specific kind of 

statute that deals with a very specific kind of crime and disorder 

that can withstand constitutional scrutiny. 

So in that regard, let me just ask three or four questions that 

help to, I think, flesh out the information that you have provided 

to us, the excellent information both in your written statements 

and in your oral testimony here. 

First of all, for Ms. Perry, these animal crush videos fall within 

a category of speech in which there is an unusual and important 

relationship between speech and crime; that is, speech depicts a 

crime that was committed in order to depict a crime. Can you explain how the creation of animal crush videos is driving criminal 

conduct—in other words, the violation of State animal cruelty 

laws? 

Ms. PERRY. Absolutely, Senator. That is a good question. Without 

a doubt, the anonymity of the use of the Internet provides fuel for 

the creation of these videos, and what we did see very clearly, we 

saw there were more than 2,000 crush videos readily available in 

7 

1999 prior to Congress’ original law being enacted. And that industry essentially dried up as a result of a Federal protection being on 

the books. And then as testified, we saw this tremendous resurgence. 

What we think is necessary is Federal action on this, because at 

the State level, as the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys clearly 

stated, it is very difficult to obtain a prosecution. Even though 

these are State crimes, the way these videos are created is fully to 

conceal the identity of the individuals perpetrating the crime because you are just seeing body parts. There is not any identifying 

information. It is sold over the Internet, which is obviously available everywhere and utterly ubiquitous. So it is critical that we 

have a Federal prohibition on the sales. That is the only way to actually get at this problem. 

Senator KYL. And a key here is that the conduct occurs specifically because they can and they do sell them over the Internet. 

Ms. PERRY. That is right. 

Senator KYL. And you also said, if I recall your testimony, that 

there are actually situations in which they tailor—in which some 

of these traffickers offer to tailor their videos to specific requests. 

Ms. PERRY. That is correct. The videos are produced for the market on the Internet, not for other purposes, and they are customproduced for individuals who put in an order and within 48 hours 

a video will be created, which shows you how many animals are 

sitting waiting before they are tortured. 

Senator KYL. Now, you heard Dr. Volkan’s testimony, and I think 

you have some familiarity also with this underlying problem with 

a lot of the people who traffic in this. Can you explain any investigations the Human Society has done or what those investigations 

have revealed about the nature of the market for these videos in 

particular with regard to their appeal to deviant sexual interest? 

Ms. PERRY. Absolutely. We undertook several investigations. The 

more recent one which showed the resurgence was reported on May 

22, 2009. And in this investigation, we uncovered hundreds and 

hundreds of videos. And, of course, we are a nonprofit organization, 

and as large as we are, we still cannot take on overseeing this entire industry. There is no way we can police it on a day-to-day 

basis. 

But in the investigations we have undertaken, we are shocked at 

the volume of videos that are now available. A single website can 

have links to multiple other websites, and those multiple other 

websites can each purvey hundreds of videos. And in each of those 

videos, multiple animals will be killed. So the numbers stack up exponentially with this. 

It is obvious that the nature of this business is responsive to 

Federal law, because the trend that we saw was a dry-up when the 

Federal law existed and a resurgence almost immediately after the 

law was struck down. From what we understand, within a month 

of the Third Circuit decision coming out, we saw squishpuppy.com 

and squishkitty.com come online. This is very responsive to Federal 

law. And I think Dr. Volkan in his testimony, in his written testimony, indicates that individuals with this predisposition are sensitive to the legality, and that might be the one thing that would 

cause them to seek treatment. 

8 

Senator KYL. And that is, of course, one of the reasons why we 

would be wanting to pursue this. 

Now, you alluded to something else I wanted to pursue a little 

bit. The House bill applies only to visual depictions of an animal 

being crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled. This list 

obviously does not involve all forms of cruelty toward animals. 

Have your investigations discovered crush videos that involve 

other types of violence, for example, videos in which the animal is 

cut or stabbed? 

Ms. PERRY. Yes. Unfortunately, we saw several videos where 

there is cutting, there is burning, there are other forms of torture 

employed. 

Senator KYL. Okay. Obviously, the reason for that is to try to 

find how we want to define what would be prohibited here, to include all of those things that are involved. 

Ms. PERRY. Yes, we want to be comprehensive, although I do 

think that the vast majority of these videos do involve the crushing. 

Senator KYL. And, Dr. Volkan, in your testimony today we 

learned that these animal crush videos do not involve actual sexual 

intercourse, or at least typically. Is it your professional opinion that 

animal crush videos are, nevertheless, sexual in content and, therefore, can fall within the definitions of obscenity which sometimes 

are the basis for courts looking at the issue? 

Mr. VOLKAN. That is a very good question, Senator. I am not an 

expert to speak to the legal definitions of obscenity, but I can say 

in my professional opinion that these videos are produced almost 

purely for the object of sexual gratification of the people who are 

watching these videos. They are clearly sexual in nature. 

Senator KYL. And just to be clear—I have not gone through all 

of your qualifications, but it is in your resume. Can you describe 

just a little bit of how you have come to these conclusions? 

Mr. VOLKAN. Sure. Basically, I teach a class on atypical 

psychopathologies which include a whole list of things that we typically call bizarre behaviors and some things that are culture-bound 

syndromes. And of these things, paraphilias are a large category, 

and they are the bizarre behaviors, the deviant behaviors that unfortunately we see a lot of in our society. They are really quite 

prevalent. Most of these things are really quite mild. They are not 

serious. But we do have some, like pedophilia, like crush 

paraphilias, that are very, very serious and obviously have a lot of 

socially unacceptable aspects to them. 

And so, you know, by teaching the class, through my clinical 

practice, I have come across some of these things and learned 

about these things over the years. 

Senator KYL. So you have studied literature. You have had firsthand experience through your own practice and have made this 

part of your professional understanding and teaching. 

Mr. VOLKAN. Yes. I have not actually treated somebody with a 

crush paraphilia, but I have treated people with different 

paraphilias. 

Senator KYL. And you have certainly studied the literature on 

the subject. 

9 

Mr. VOLKAN. Yes, I have studied the literature pretty extensively 

at this point. 

Senator KYL. Well, again, this is a subject that I think the Congress wants to deal with as quickly as we can in a way that will 

ensure this time that we get it right, the courts will uphold what 

we do so that we can prevent the kind of cruelty that is involved 

here, and hopefully help people who suffer from the sexual deviancy that you have identified. 

If my colleagues have questions, we will leave the record open for 

a few days here to permit them to ask you questions, and I may 

think of something else that we need to ask. 

The statements are part of the record. The letter that you submitted is part of the record. 

I also want to put a statement into the record that Senator Feinstein has offered in support of what we are doing here. 

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

Senator KYL. Also, we will insert in the record a statement by 

Senator Burr. 

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

Senator KYL. Do either of you have anything else that you would 

like to offer at this time? 

I certainly want to thank you for your concern about the issue 

and for your testimony. This is exactly the kind of hearing that 

may be the most productive for us: short, concentrated, to the 

point, and hopefully very effective. 

Ms. PERRY. Thank you for your leadership. 

Mr. VOLKAN. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KYL. You are very welcome, and I appreciate those of 

you in the audience being here as well. 

This hearing will now stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:26 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

10 


64411.001
11 


64411.002
12 


64411.003
13 


64411.004
14 


64411.005
15 


64411.006
16 


64411.007
17 


64411.008
18 


64411.009
19 


64411.010
20 


64411.011
21 


64411.012
22 


64411.013
23 


64411.014
24 


64411.015
25 


64411.016
26 


64411.017
27 


64411.018
28 


64411.019
29 


64411.020
30 


64411.021
31 


64411.022
32 


64411.023
33 


64411.024
34 


64411.025
35 


64411.026
36 


64411.027
37 


64411.028
38 


64411.029
39 


64411.030
40 


64411.031
41 


64411.032
42 


64411.033
43 


64411.034
44 


64411.035
45 


64411.036
46 


64411.037
47 


64411.038
48 


64411.039
49 


64411.040
50 


64411.041
51 


64411.042
52 


64411.043
53 


64411.044
54 


64411.045
55 


64411.046
56 


64411.047
57 


64411.048
58 


64411.049
59 


64411.050
60 


64411.051
61 


64411.052
62 


64411.053
63 


64411.054
64 


64411.055
65 


64411.056
66 


64411.057
67 


64411.058
68 


64411.059
69 


64411.060
70 


64411.061
71 


64411.062
72 


64411.063
73 


64411.064
74 


64411.065
75 


64411.066
76 


64411.067
77 


64411.068
78 


64411.069
79 


64411.070
80 


64411.071
81 


64411.072
82 


64411.073
83 


64411.074
84 


64411.075
85 


64411.076
86 


64411.077
87 


64411.078
88 


64411.079
89 


64411.080
90 


64411.081
91 


64411.082
92 


64411.083
93 


64411.084
94 


64411.085
95 


64411.086
96 


64411.087
97 


64411.088
98 


64411.089
99 


64411.090
100 


64411.091
101 


64411.092
102 

Æ 


64411.093