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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–127 2002

HOW LIMITING INTERNATIONAL VISITOR VISAS

HURTS SMALL TOURISM BUSINESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 19, 2002

Serial No. 107–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman

LARRY COMBEST, Texas 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SUE W. KELLY, New York 

STEVE. CHABOT, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota 

MICHAEL PENCE, Indiana 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia 

FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York 

TODD W. AKIN, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma 

ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico 

DOUG THOMAS, Staff Director

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Staff Director

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 19, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

WITNESSES 

Ziglar, Hon. James, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 

U.S. Justice Department ..................................................................................... 4

Bush, Hon. John Ellis ‘‘Jeb’’, Governor, State of Florida, via videotape ............. 7

Sullivan, Hon. Thomas, Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration ............................................................................................. 9

McDermott, Mark, Director, Arizona Office of Tourism, on behalf of Western 

States Tourism Policy Council ............................................................................ 10

Lewis, John, Retired, former Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Division .......................................................................... 13

Amrine, Neil, President, Guide Service of Washington, on behalf of the Travel 

Industry Association of America ......................................................................... 15

Highfield, Del, Owner, Camping Resort of the Palm Beaches, on behalf of 

National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds ....................................... 17

White, Ellen, President, Canadian Snowbird Association .................................... 19

Hjelle, Mark, Vice President & General Counsel, The Brickman Group, on 

behalf of American Nursery & Landscape Association ..................................... 20

APPENDIX 

Opening statements: 

Manzullo, Hon. Donald .................................................................................... 47

Velazquez, Hon. Nydia ..................................................................................... 49

Jones, Hon. Stephanie Tubbs .......................................................................... 55

Udall, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................... 57

Prepared statements: 

Ziglar, Hon. James ........................................................................................... 59

Bush, Hon. John Ellis ‘‘Jeb’’ ............................................................................ 68

Sullivan, Hon. Thomas ..................................................................................... 70

McDermott, Mark ............................................................................................. 80

Lewis, John ....................................................................................................... 87

Amrine, Neil ...................................................................................................... 88

Highfield, Del .................................................................................................... 93

White, Ellen ...................................................................................................... 97

Hjelle, Mark ...................................................................................................... 103

Page

IV

Additional information: 

Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 71, April 12, 2002 .......................................... 109

The Washington Post, Wednesday, June 19, 2002, ‘‘Sept. 11 Plot Likely 

Hatched in ’98, Tenet Says’’ Page A10 ........................................................ 114

Letter to Mrs. Ellen White, Canadian Snowbird Assc. from James Ziglar, 

U.S. Department of Justice .......................................................................... 115

Letter to James Ziglar, U.S. Department of Justice from Chairman Manzullo & Ranking Member Velazquez ........................................................... 116

Letter to James Ziglar, U.S. Department of Justice from Senator Harry 

Reid ................................................................................................................ 118

Letter to James Ziglar, U.S. Department of Justice from Florida Governor 

Jeb Bush ........................................................................................................ 120

Letter to Immigration and Naturalization Service from the U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce .................................................................................................. 121

Letter from Jolene Wade, Fountain of Youth Spa RV Resort, California .... 127

Illinois-Canadian trade statistics .................................................................... 128

New York-Canadian trade statistics ............................................................... 130

The Washington Times, Tuesday, June 18, 2002; ‘‘Terrorists recruited 

from U.S. seen as a rising threat,’’ Page A3 ............................................... 132

Center for Immigration Studies—Summary table of the immigration status of foreign born terrorists ........................................................................ 133

(1)

HOW LIMITING INTERNATIONAL VISITOR 

VISAS HURTS SMALL TOURISM BUSINESS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m. in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Manzullo 

[chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The Committee will come to order. Just a 

little bit of information as we wait for Ms. Velazquez. Here she is. 

Good morning. How are you? 

The way the panel is set up, as we do with most of our hearings 

here, it is more for a conversational style. The purpose of the hearing is to try to work towards a resolution of the topic that is at 

hand. 

I have advised the Commissioner who is here after traveling an 

entire week that if a question is asked by a Member of Congress 

and he feels more comfortable having a member of his staff answer 

the question because it is technical, then that option is totally up 

to you, Commissioner. 

The purpose is to get as much information out in the best source 

that you have, so if you have to ask someone to come up all we ask 

is that person just introduce themselves and spell their name for 

the record and proceed to answer the question. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Today the Committee will focus on the importance of international tourism to our nation’s small businesses. 

Over 25 million overseas visitors came to our country in 2000, giving us a trade surplus of $14 billion. Last April, the INS proposed 

a rule to change the automatic default period for tourist visas from 

non-waiver countries from six months to 30 days. 

I understand there has been a lot of confusion about this proposal. Many media reports say that all visitors would be limited to 

stay in the U.S. for a maximum of 30 days. However, the proposal 

will grant any international visitor from a non-visa waiver country 

the time they believe is appropriate to visit the U.S. up to six 

months, provided they can demonstrate to an INS immigration inspector a rationale for staying in the country for more than 30 

days. 

Regardless of this clarification, the proposal may well endanger 

the confidence of foreign travelers desiring to visit the U.S. for 

longer than 30 days. According to an INS fact sheet, the new rule 

will require visitors to, and we quote, ‘‘explain to an INS immigraVerDate Aug 23 2002 01:41 Aug 30, 2002 Jkt 081127 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A127.XXX A127
2

tion inspector the nature and purpose of their visit so the inspector 

can determine the appropriate length of stay. While INS inspectors 

will make every effort to determine a fair and reasonable time period, the burden of proof rests with the alien. When the time needed to accomplish the purpose of the visit cannot be determined, 

INS will grant a 30 day period of admission.’’ The proposed rule itself states that ‘‘where there is any ambiguity whether a shorter or longer period of admission would be fair 

and reasonable under the circumstances’’ then the visa will be 

issued for 30 days. 

The main justification for this proposal is to fight terrorism, obviously an extremely important objective, yet this policy change has 

very little to do with fighting terrorism. In yesterday’s Washington 

Times, there was a report about the growing threat of terrorist 

forces recruiting disaffected U.S. citizens with passports in order to 

avoid our immigration laws. 

There must be a better way to accomplish the legitimate objectives of the INS without significantly damaging the U.S. travel and 

tourism industry. We certainly need better sharing of intelligence 

data so that our consular officers abroad and our immigration inspectors at the border know who to deny entry into the United 

States. 

The INS also claims this rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule 

only applies to non-immigrant aliens visiting the U.S., not to small 

entities. They also claim this is not a major rule that will have an 

impact on the economy of $100 million or more. The INS has not 

provided research or any documentation to substantiate this statement made in the proposed rule. 

The travel and tourism industry in the U.S. is dominated by 

small businesses. This industry relies heavily on international visitors for their livelihood. In 2000, the Commerce Department estimated that 939,000 visitors from non-visa waiver countries contributed almost $2.1 billion to the U.S. economy. That is a significant 

impact in my book. 

Finally, I have a concern about how our Canadian friends will be 

treated under this new rule. Currently, most Canadians crossing 

our border do not need a passport. They are not given anything in 

paper by our INS immigration inspectors documenting how long 

they are allowed to stay in this country because they are automatically assumed to have a default admission period of six months. 

Yet how will this rule affect them? 

While I welcome Homeland Security Director Tim Ridge’s clarification to deliver a formal notice to Canada saying Canadians can 

still head to the U.S. for up to six months, it is also preferable for 

this to be included in the final rule. Canadians have a vested interest in not staying in the U.S. beyond six months because otherwise 

they will lose their health insurance and also have to pay U.S. 

taxes. 

There were nearly 14.6 million arrivals of Canadian citizens 

through our border in 2000. They spent nearly $10 billion in the 

U.S., including $162 million in my home state of Illinois. How this 

issue affecting Canadians is resolved is of great interest to me. 

Continued progress on the Smart Border plan with our Canadian 

3

friends will probably do more to fight terrorism than any other initiative. 

I now yield for the purpose of an opening statement to my colleague and good friend from the Empire State, Mrs. Velazquez. 

[Chairman Manzullo’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tourism benefits 

American small businesses from shops and charters to airline suppliers and concessionaires. It is hard to overestimate the influence 

of this sector. During the last decade, travel and tourism became 

an established leader in a modern services economy. 

When counted as an export contribution, travel and tourism more than doubled, from $26 billion in 1986 to $90 billion in 1996. 

This sector is our number one services export and has produced a 

trade surplus every year since 1989. Here is a demonstration of 

tourism on the local level. In 1996, a record 46.5 million people visited the United States. Every one spent an average of $1,500, including a third on lodging, another third on retail and a fifth on 

food. 

Clearly, international travel to the United States is a vital small 

business export, just like selling software or wheat. It boosts our 

GDP and supports more than one million jobs. How the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s new regulations for tourist visas 

will affect this vibrant and vital sector should concern this Committee. 

After September 11, the INS had to act to protect our security. 

Most of the terrorists involved in the attacks were in this country 

on valid entry visas. In fact, nine of the 19 known hijackers were 

in the country on tourist visas. The INS rewrote the rules on nonimmigrant visas, including tourist visas, and the President has proposed to create an entire new Department of Homeland Security as 

part of a broad restructuring process. We must not forfeit our oversight and duty to stem any unanticipated consequences during this 

push to secure the country against future terrorist attacks. 

We are here to examine the impact of the INS’ proposed reform 

of the B–1/B–2 visa procedures. While this move is an attempt to 

address an area of concern, it should not result simply in a false 

sense of security while inconveniencing visitors and disrupting our 

vital and growing small business tourism sector. 

It is apparent that the INS has not fully examined or anticipated 

the impacts of these vast changes as required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and SBREFA. The INS must also conduct outreach 

and consider less burdensome regulatory alternatives. 

The new regulations eliminate the six month visa and reduce 

most stays to 30 days. This will clearly inconvenience a majority 

of visitors since a 30 day visa means the average visitor of 20 days 

has about a week and a half leeway to make their trip. Given that, 

many potential visitors may simply choose somewhere else to go. 

This new policy deters the people we want to visit, those who 

stay the longest and spend their money at small businesses across 

this country. This is the effect that we wish the INS would consult 

with small businesses on before taking. 

With a close look at this regulation, we can increase security in 

the visa process without adversely affecting small business. We 

should also fix a firm time frame to develop new rules and ensure 

4

predictability for visitors. Most importantly, this process cannot be 

concluded without small business input. 

As in most things, achieving the best balance of all the interests 

involved should be our goal. This Committee needs to assert oversight powers now at the very beginning of the effort to restructure 

our government’s homeland security infrastructure before it becomes too big and unwieldy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Ms. Velazquez’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. We have in our midst Ron 

Erdman from the Department of Commerce. Ron, where are you? 

Mr. ERDMAN. Right here in the back. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Ron, could you have a seat somewhere up 

front just in case some statistics come up that we need in your position as Deputy Director of Travel and Tourism at the Department 

of Commerce? We would be able to have you come and give those 

stats for us. If you could have a seat here next to Laura over there 

against the wall, that would be fine. Thank you. 

We look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. We have a 

five minute clock. That clock is not going to apply to the first two 

witnesses. The first witness is Jim Ziglar. I do not know how it 

could apply to a videotape of Governor Bush. Mr. Ziglar, we welcome you here. We know you have been on extensive travel. We 

look forward to your testimony. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES W. ZIGLAR, COMMISSIONER, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling 

this hearing so that we can have a chance to discuss the INS’ recently published proposed rules with respect to B–2 visitors and B–

1 visitors to the United States. 

I would like to briefly explain our reasons for issuing this proposed rule and clarify some misinterpretations and misperceptions. 

First, let me make it very clear that this is not a 30 day rule for 

visits to the United States. Our proposal is to admit all visitors for 

up to, but not more than, six months based on the purpose and 

stated duration of their visit. Experience and data indicate that six 

months far exceeds the average length of stay for most visitors. 

Since admission to the United States is not automatic, we also 

propose to place responsibility to explain the purpose and length of 

stay on B–2 visitors for pleasure. That is how we currently and 

have for a long time admitted B–1 visitors for business. 

In instances where there is ambiguity over the exact nature of 

the visit, INS proposes a default admission period of 30 days. That 

is where someone cannot tell you why they are here or how long 

they plan to stay here. Then the default period will be 30 days, but 

it is not a maximum period that visitors get. The period is based 

upon what is reasonable and fair to accomplish the purpose of the 

visit. 

As the public, media and other interested persons have digested 

these proposed changes, a number of misperceptions have arisen 

regarding the rule, in particular that the INS is seeking to establish again a 30 day time limit on visits to the United States. That 

5

is simply not true. I keep repeating that because I think it is important for people out there to understand that. 

I know some have said that this rule will not enhance our security. I believe that claim is simply not true. The very reason for 

these changes is the concern highlighted by the activities of the 19 

hijackers that an individual can enter the United States for an almost automatic six months and potentially can file for an extension 

and stay a year or more without having to validate substantially 

the reasons that they are here. 

As you know, 18 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States 

on B–2 visitor visas. In addition, an automatic six month admission 

period with a generous extension policy may lead individuals to develop permanent ties to the United States, including employment, 

although illegal, that contributes to the process of visa overstays. 

As the Committee is well aware, rules and regulations have a deterrent effect. Typical criminal behavior strives to avoid attention. 

Individuals who seek to do harm to our country are more likely to 

draw attention to themselves if they fail to play by the rules. 

Therefore, the proposed rule makes it more difficult for such individuals to remain undetected inside the United States for long periods of time. 

Nearly all of the 19 hijackers maintained valid status while planning the attacks of September 11. They made concerted efforts to 

do so, it is logical to assume, because that made them less likely 

to come to the attention of federal authorities. 

By limiting the stay of individuals who do not have legitimate 

reason to be in the United States for long periods of time, there is 

a greater likelihood that those with bad intent will appear on the 

radar screen of law enforcement officials. This proposed rule will 

also complement our developing an entry/exit system to record the 

arrival and departure of foreign nations, something that has been 

mandated by the Congress. 

I believe that it is the misunderstanding that we are reducing B– 2 visitors for pleasure admission periods to only 30 days that has 

led to the conclusion that the travel and tourism industry would be 

harmed. The INS inspections program is carrying out a rigorous 

and will carry out a rigorous education program to ensure that all 

immigration inspectors fully understand that any default period is 

not a new maximum admission period. Our inspectors today determine a fair and reasonable period of admission for those entering 

as B–1 visitors for business. This concept is not new for our men 

and women at the ports of entry. 

As I am sure the Committee can well appreciate, national security concerns figure prominently in almost every action currently 

undertaken by the government. At the INS, we take seriously the 

responsibility to ensure a secure flow of people across our borders. 

This requires us to balance our charge to defend the United States 

from those who intend to do harm to us and the need to secure our 

economic prosperity and freedoms by keeping our borders open to 

legitimate travel and commerce. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just divert from my text here for a minute 

and make a personal comment about that. I spent most of my career, in fact the major portion of my career, working on Wall Street 

in New York, an industry that is very sensitive to the economy of 

6

this country. Just look at what the stock market does day in and 

day out. 

I can tell you that I am personally very concerned about any security measure that would have an impact on our economy for the 

simple reason that if we do not have a strong economy, we are not 

going to have the resources to protect ourselves, so it is an iterative 

process. 

I think you will see that in terms of the way we are trying to 

deal with some border issues in terms of trying to have a fast pass, 

if you will, concept between the Canadians and the U.S. and the 

Mexicans and the U.S. where we identify people and we have tamper-proof ways of having cards that they can pass across the border 

that indicate who they are and say they have the right kind of documents and that sort of thing. I mean, we are working very hard 

to try to ameliorate the effects, the adverse economic effects, of security measures. 

I am no less concerned about this issue than I am about the socalled fast pass, if you will, between those two countries, so you are 

not talking to someone here who is unaware of the economic consequences. I spent my entire life in the private sector dealing with 

economics and the impact on markets and other things. 

Our proposals make sure that every visitor applying for admission is questioned thoroughly in order to determine a fair and reasonable period of admission. It is reasonable to expect that anyone 

traveling to the United States should be able to articulate to the 

inspector the desired period of admission, be it verbally or with 

documents that outline the nature of the trip. Requiring individuals to justify their itinerary and length of stay is prudent policy, 

particularly in light of the post September 11 world. 

This proposed rule is just one of a series of steps that we are taking to bolster the integrity of our nation’s immigration system. We 

have issued a number of necessary, if not universally popular, directives. For example, we directed the INS to publish changes to 

our foreign student regulations, and this summer we will begin to 

deploy the automated, internet based SEVIS system that monitors 

foreign students attending American institutions of learning. 

In a similar vein, I directed that no application or petition for immigration benefits be approved before appropriate security checks 

have been conducted. We have also instituted more robust checks 

on refugees, and overall we have instituted policies requiring higher levels of approval when we grant parole or deferred inspection 

at our ports of entry. 

We must take steps to minimize our vulnerability to those who 

would exploit our generous system, and it indeed is generous. Of 

equal importance are steps to guard against the erosion of public 

confidence in our long and rich tradition of welcoming people to 

this country. 

Our aim is not to stifle international tourism and the significant 

impact that tourism has on our economy. Our aim is to make the 

admission process to the United States safer and less vulnerable to 

abuse. 

The B regulation is a proposed rule. The Administration is open 

to persuasion and argument. I understand that people have raised 

their concerns in good faith. This hearing and the significant numVerDate Aug 23 2002 01:41 Aug 30, 2002 Jkt 081127 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A127.XXX A127
7

ber of public comments will certainly play a role in how we draft 

the final rule on this issue. This give and take in public discourse 

is what this country is all about. 

Thank you again for the opportunity. I am sorry I went over my 

time, but I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

[Mr. Ziglar’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Our next witness will be Pamella Dana, and I think you want 

to introduce your boss to us. Is that correct? 

Ms. DANA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Bring the mike real close to you. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELLA DANA, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF TOURISM, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. DANA. On behalf of the State of Florida, thank you, Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Member Velazquez and Members of the 

Committee, for inviting me to join you this morning. 

As Florida is Director for the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, I am very honored to be before you today to 

introduce Governor Jeb Bush’s videotaped testimony. On that note, 

I would like to offer special thanks to your staff who made the arrangements possible for this videotape. 

This hearing is very important to many states, but none more 

than Florida. With 70 million visitors to our state annually, of 

which eight million are from international destinations, tourism is 

Florida’s largest industry. It is a $50 billion industry, employing 

850,000 people. Small businesses comprise the bulk of those involved in the travel industry, and they depend upon the robust flow 

of domestic and international visitors to our state to keep afloat. 

As such, the proposed INS regulation to limit international visitor 

visas has far reaching economic implications for our state. 

This issue originally came to the Governor’s attention from the 

Canadian Snowbird Association, a membership group of 100,000 

plus. The Governor has been heavily involved in this issue ever 

since. While he could not be here today, he wanted to do this videotape to stress and emphasize the importance of this issue to our 

state. 

With that, I will ask that we run the Governor’s testimony, and 

I thank you for your time and consideration. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I think we are going to work on some 

lights here. 

[Videotape played.] 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ELLIS ‘‘JEB’’ BUSH, 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA 

Governor BUSH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for allowing me to speak to you today in response to the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service’s proposed rule on limiting 

international visitor visas. 

Let me preface my comments by emphasizing that the safety and 

security of our nation and its borders are of utmost importance. I 

support, as do the people of Florida, every reasonable effort on the 

8

part of the federal government to ensure that our citizens are protected from terrorist activities. 

At the same time, we must not impose unreasonable restrictions 

on the millions of international visitors who come to this country 

wishing only to enjoy our nation’s natural beauty, exciting destinations and the hospitality of our people. 

My state, Florida, is among the world’s most popular visitor destinations. Last year, we welcomed nearly 70 million people. Of that 

70 million, about one in ten, or nearly eight million, came to us 

from a country other than the United States. 

Although the majority of these international visitors only spend 

a week or two in Florida when they visit, there is a substantial 

number who stay longer, sometimes for several months. Many of 

them own vacation property in Florida or stay with family or 

friends who live in Florida. These are the visitors who would be directly impacted by any move to impose a universal 30 day limit on 

the length of time non-citizens can stay in this country. 

Of the eight million international visitors to Florida, nearly three 

million are presently required to secure visas to enter the United 

States and would have their length of stay restricted under the 

proposal. Their contribution to our economy is commensurate with 

their significant numbers; more than $3 billion in spending and 

nearly $200 million in state sales tax revenue. 

Further, the relative misunderstanding of what the proposed rule 

change would actually mean to international visitors seeking to 

travel to the United States is widespread. We have experienced 

considerable correspondence from individuals and organizations 

around the world who either believe that the proposed rule changes 

would prohibit any international visits to the United States beyond 

the 30 days or that the proposed rule is in fact already in effect. 

Such misperceptions have led many to ponder other vacation destinations beyond the United States or a sell off of their vacation investments and properties in Florida. 

Confusion in the marketplace caused by simple misunderstandings could also make it difficult for tour brokers and operators 

to sell U.S. destinations for fear that clients would not be able to 

complete their itineraries in the United States. 

With all of these considerations in mind, I would urge the Committee to carefully weigh the impact that this proposal would ultimately have on valued international tourism to the United States. 

Thank you for your kind attention. 

[Governor Bush’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. I want the record to indicate that Governor Bush stated that he personally wanted to be here, but could 

not because of a commitment in California. Is that correct? 

Ms. DANA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Does that conclude the Governor’s testimony? 

Ms. DANA. Yes, it does. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Thank you very much. 

The next witness will be Tom Sullivan. Tom, I am going to start 

the five minute clock on this, but you are used to it, and you usually conclude in a lot shorter time than that. I look forward to your 

testimony. 

9

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS SULLIVAN, CHIEF 

COUNSEL, OFFICE OF ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Velazquez, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to address the impact on 

small business of the INS proposal to reduce the default period for 

admissions under a B–2 tourist visa. 

My name is Tom Sullivan. I am the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

at the SBA. As Chief Counsel, I am charged with monitoring federal agencies’ compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Please note that my office is independent and that the views expressed in my statement do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

Administration or the SBA. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to prepare small 

business impact statements when proposing new regulations. The 

analysis is prepared in order to ensure that agencies consider their 

economic impact on small business and that agencies consider reasonable alternatives that would minimize the impact of rules on 

small entities. 

The Act exempts agencies from these requirements if they certify 

that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small businesses. If the head of 

the agency makes such a certification, the agency should provide 

a factual basis for the certification. 

I would like to point out that last year the Office of Advocacy 

worked with regulatory agencies and convinced them many times 

to change their approach prior to finalizing rules to the tune of $4.1 

billion in cost savings. We are proud of the fact that these savings 

were achieved by sitting agencies down with small business and 

working through difficult issues. 

The savings were achieved without sacrificing environmental 

protection or sacrificing worker safety. The billions of dollars saved 

goes back into our economy, allowing small businesses to hire new 

employees, invest in new computers or provide health care for their 

employees. 

On April 12, INS proposed a rule limiting the period for admission for B non-immigrant aliens. Under the current rules, a foreign 

tourist is allowed to stay a minimum of six months under a B–2 

tourist visa. 

It is my office’s understanding that the new INS proposal will 

eliminate the minimum six months admission period and establish 

greater control over a B visitor’s ability to extend status or change 

status to that of a non-immigrant student. For the purpose of this 

hearing, my comments are limited to the aspects of the proposal 

which eliminate the minimum admission period for B–2 visitors. 

In the Regulatory Flexibility Act section of the INS proposal, 

they certify that it would not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. In my view, INS’ certification is deficient because it does not consider the impact that the 

proposal may have on members of the travel and tourism industry 

who you will hear from directly in a few minutes. 

Representing small business, we are concerned about the potential impact of the INS rules. Department of Commerce statistics inVerDate Aug 23 2002 01:41 Aug 30, 2002 Jkt 081127 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A127.XXX A127
10

dicate that in the year 2000 foreign visitors spent $70 billion in 

this country. SBA’s statistics indicate that the majority of the travel and tourism industry are small business. 

For example, 95 percent of all travel agencies and 84.5 percent 

of the tour operating businesses are currently defined as small 

business. However, the proposal will affect more than travel agencies and tour operators. It will have a foreseeable impact on other 

small businesses like hotels/motels, restaurants, sightseeing bus 

companies and souvenir shops. 

If foreign travelers decide to travel elsewhere due to the uncertainty that we believe is inherent in this new visa policy, the travel 

and tourism industry could lose billions of dollars. Advocacy asserts 

that this impact is not only logical, it is foreseeable. Yet INS, in 

their proposal, made little effort to analyze that potential impact. 

Here in this proposal, flushing out the small business impact and 

considering alternatives that may have assisted INS in finding a 

more effective solution is the way we would have recommended 

they proceed. The Office of Advocacy is obviously sensitive to how 

the government approaches international visitors in the wake of 

the September 11 terrorist attacks. We want to make sure that the 

regulatory approaches protect both our national security and our 

economic security. 

Unfortunately, the INS proposal, in our view, appears to accomplish one, but not necessarily the other. The impact that the proposal could have on the travel and tourism industry is a serious 

concern, especially since the industry, made up almost entirely of 

small business, is struggling to recover from September 11. As the 

independent voice for small business within the federal government, I urge INS to consider less burdensome alternatives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I am happy to 

answer any questions that you may have about my statement. 

[Mr. Sullivan’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mark McDermott, the chairman of the Western States Tourism Policy Council and director of the Arizona Office of Tourism. Mark, if you want to pull that mike closer? We look 

forward to your testimony. 

The complete statements of all the witnesses and all the Members of Congress will be incorporated into the record without objection. 

STATEMENT OF MARK McDERMOTT, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA OFFICE OF TOURISM, ON BEHALF OF THE WESTERN STATES 

TOURISM POLICY COUNCIL 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate that you are going to be 

hearing a lot of the same sort of testimony from most of us this 

morning. In fact, most of what I have to say has already been said 

indeed by the Chairman and by the Ranking Member, as well as 

by previous speakers, so I will be very brief with my remarks and 

get right to essentially our conclusions. 

My name is Mark McDermott. I am the director of the Arizona 

Office of Tourism and currently serve as chairman of the Western 

States Tourism Policy Council. Just for your information, the counVerDate Aug 23 2002 01:41 Aug 30, 2002 Jkt 081127 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A127.XXX A127
11

cil was formed in 1996 and is a consortium of currently 13 states, 

including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and 

Wyoming. 

Our mission is to advance the understanding and increase the 

support for public policies that enhance the positive impact of travel and tourism on the economy and the environment of its member 

states and communities and their related businesses, principally 

small businesses. 

In all 13 of these western states, tourism is a dynamic and vital 

part of the economy, and it ranks among the top three providers 

of jobs in each western state and generates billions of dollars in 

payroll and taxes in the west. 

International visitation, especially from Canada and Mexico, is a 

major economic contributor to each of these states, and, Mr. Chairman, most of this economic activity, as you know, because you have 

already stated, primarily benefits small businesses for tourism in 

the nation and in the west and is predominantly small business 

with many of these small businesses ranking truly as mom and pop 

operations such as restaurants, motels, RV parks, campgrounds 

and vendors. 

The importance of international travel cannot be understated as 

it pertains to us and tourism in the west, as well as into the entire 

country. The visitation and economic impact figures for international tourism, including visa waiver and non-visa waiver countries, has already been stated, so I will not reiterate those. 

I will state, though, that for the particular purposes of those of 

us in the west, Arizona provides a good example, aside from the 

major tourism states of California and Nevada, in that in 2001, in 

our state nearly 315,000 Canadian visitors spent about $208 million and from Mexico, using 2000 figures, 1.5 million Mexican visitors spent more than $740 million in Arizona. 

I have mentioned Canada and Mexico in particular because we 

believe that the confusion and misunderstanding about the proposed ruling is having a particular effect on these significantly important sectors of Arizona’s and the west’s international tourism 

market. 

Just as a quick aside, in our state of Arizona, according to the 

Arizona Travel Parks Association, during the seven month winter 

season of October through April Canadians occupy up to 25 percent 

of the sites in many parks, and in some parks the figure approaches 50 percent of Canadian occupancy, so it is obvious that 

the impact on Canadian and potentially Mexican visitors of the 

confusion that prevails right now is already beginning to take 

place. 

While the WSTPC respects and appreciates the good intentions 

and the national security focused good intentions of those who have 

drafted this proposed rule and that the aim is not to stifle international tourism, we are concerned that it is in fact doing just that. 

It will do more harm than good. 

The proposed rule as stated in general terms and the implementation and enforcement procedures and requirements are undefined 

and unclear, causing uncertainty and endangerment of confidence 

on the part of potential international travelers and, perhaps even 

12

more importantly, on the part of tour operators planning tourism 

programs for these international travelers. 

We believe the proposal is seriously flawed for the following principal reasons. Implementation of the proposed rule will result in 

congestion and delay at ports of entry, which will discourage international visitors to the U.S. 

The proposed rule will seriously jeopardize tourism business in 

the U.S. from Canadians. I will speak to that for a moment here. 

Since Canadians entering the U.S. are not required to have visas 

now and would not be so required under the proposed rule, it is unclear how they would be handled. We do not know what documents 

will be required from them to prove the purpose or the duration of 

their visit, and we are concerned that a strenuous and precise enforcement of this rule will have a debilitating effect on Canadian 

travel, which will have a severely negative impact throughout the 

west. 

The proposed rule could potentially seriously jeopardize cross 

border travel by Mexicans into the U.S. for many of the same reasons having to do with uncertainty, and the conditions for granting 

extensions of stay fail to include residential leasing or renting as 

reasonable justifications. They pertain, as we understand them to 

be written right now, only to home ownership, as opposed to rental 

or leasing of vacation homes. 

To avoid negative impact on the proposed rule, WSTPC supports 

the reasonable alternative that has been proposed by the Travel Industry Association of America. TIA urges that a 90 day default be 

granted to all B visitors and that it be extended upon request and 

review.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that this proposed rule 

will unjustifiably jeopardize the economies of states and communities in the west and throughout the nation, and we respectfully 

suggest that it is a classic example of the costs of regulation far 

exceeding the benefits. In fact, we suggest it should be withdrawn. 

If not withdrawn, we respectfully urge that the rule as proposed 

be substantially modified in at least three respects. One, instead of 

a variable, unpredictable length of stay for B visa visitors, the final 

rule should adopt a fixed period of 90 days as described earlier, allowing extensions up to 12 months. Canada and Mexico should be 

explicitly exempted from the final rule, and it should be clearly 

stated that the rule makes no changes in how Canadians and Mexicans are treated and processed as they enter the U.S. 

Three, lease and real properties should be regarded as equivalent 

to ownership when considering extensions of the length of stay. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. WSTPC will be happy to provide any additional information that may be relevant and important to the Committee. This concludes my remarks. 

[Mr. McDermott’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. You will have set the record for saying the 

most in the least amount of time. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Evelyn Wood served me well. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Is that what it is? That is great. 

I do not know when the bells are going to come up, and I want 

to keep the continuity going here. I am going to go down to the end 

of the table to John Lewis. 

13

Mark, can you hand the mike over to Mr. Lewis? 

In your testimony, Mr. Lewis, could you briefly give your background? We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LEWIS, RETIRED, FORMER ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You have to pull it a lot closer than that. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I know the first thing when you look at the witness list you 

might ask what in the world is this guy doing here, but, quite 

frankly, I was asked by the Chairman to come and add some different perspectives, a counterintelligence and counter-terrorism 

perspective. 

Given my own background, I retired from the FBI, as indicated 

on the witness list, in September, 1998, as Assistant Director in 

Charge of Counterintelligence and Counter-Terrorism Programs. In 

that capacity, I also served as chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee on Terrorism and chairman 

of the National Counterintelligence Policy Board. When I retired, 

I took a job in New York as global security director for a major financial institution, retiring two months ago. 

Now, given the fact that clearly there are a lot of misunderstandings about this particular proposal, as Commissioner Ziglar 

pointed out and others, I am not an INS expert, but I am simply 

going to ask, as the Chairman has asked me to do, some different 

perspectives to maybe think about. 

First of all, aside from the fact that in my judgement, and this 

is based on my experience with the Bureau, and I also should mention I served a tour abroad, INS is clearly understaffed and, in my 

judgement, in a very poor position to make any kind of meaningful 

judgement regarding people seeking entry into the U.S. 

Secondly, it is difficult to talk about entry into the U.S. without 

considering the visa approvals process conducted by Consular Affairs officers around the world. With all due respect, I am aware 

of many one to two minute interviews as to whether or not a person is granted a visa. The usual focus is sufficient ties, that he or 

she will return and also have financial means to travel and return 

from the U.S. 

Given the fact that virtually every type of immigration has been 

exploited by terrorists, to focus on a minimum admission policy 

alone, quite frankly, makes little sense to me, especially putting 

the burden on the alien in effect to establish his or her bona fides 

to enter and stay in the U.S. 

Since this proposal is post September 11, I fail to see how this 

would make us more secure. To me, it does not focus on keeping 

out the most dangerous terrorists and criminals, but would have a 

chilling effect to more law abiding, poor or middle class potential 

visitors rather than the terrorist criminal individuals and groups 

or groups who, quite frankly, have no qualms to get past our controls. Ultimately, the whole issue of immigration to include visa 

14

issues and entry into the U.S. rests on proper screening and tracking. 

These observations, and I will only make a few; that is why I am 

only going to talk for a couple of minutes here, and they are not 

all inclusive, nor are they in any particular priority, but these are 

some of the things I would ask that maybe you congressmen and 

women and look into. 

Consular Affairs must be upgraded and better integrated with 

INS to ensure visa applicants are properly checked. According to 

the Center for Immigration Studies, page 7, 41 of 48 terrorists 

were approved for a visa by an American consulate overseas. 

The screening process should include access to all suspected 

criminals and terrorists across the federally held databases. I know 

a lot of strides have been made in that regard, but Consulate Affairs has to get involved, too, and not just with a cable back to the 

States. 

Next, better our ability through liaison and technical means to 

detect fraudulent passports with our visa waiver program countries. I will not go into all the issues regarding certain countries 

where most of these terrorists came from and, quite frankly, how 

many of them got a visa without even appearing before an American. 

Next, fund and institute a computerized entry/exit system. The 

fact of the matter is our current system is neither timely nor totally adequate to track visitors to the United States. I know we 

have the I–94 program, but, to the best of my knowledge, this is 

all still done by hand and not computerized. 

Next, to fully support the fingerprinting of visa applicants from 

high profile countries supporting terrorism. A photograph is obtained already through the visa application process. 

Lastly, and I know again there have been some strides made in 

this regard, but, in my own mind, having dealt with a lot of police 

over the years, it is inadequate. I am sorry. I missed out of turn 

here. It should be ensured that all other federal agencies, as well 

as state and local law enforcement authorities—by that I mean the 

cop on the street—has access related to any information placed in 

federally held law enforcement databases related to visitors to the 

U.S. 

To make a phone call to check on somebody and have to wait for 

a response I do not think is adequate. I recognize that this might 

be very controversial, but the fact of the matter is the guy who 

makes the stop, the speeding stop or whatever, it would really be 

nice if he or she had some access to this information if something 

is there. 

Lastly, and probably the main reason I offered to come here, is 

that in any organization that petitions or sponsors a person to 

come to the U.S. either as a student or on a work permit, that organization should be responsible to report whether he or she is still 

in the U.S. 

I understand the schools have now been tasked with this requirement. I do not know how that is operating, but how about businesses? I know that when you petition or sponsor someone to come 

in if they leave your employ it is supposed to be up to them to notify INS. Well, to my way of thinking that is whistling in the wind. 

15

That is the extent of my remarks, Mr. Chairman. 

[Mr. Lewis’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Neil is it—— Mr. AMRINE. Amrine. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Amrine. Okay. Neil is the president of 

Guide Service of Washington, Inc., on behalf of his company and 

also on behalf of the Travel Industry Association of America. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL AMRINE, PRESIDENT, GUIDE SERVICE 

OF WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. AMRINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you pull your mike up a little bit 

closer there? Thank you. 

Mr. AMRINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Velazquez and Members of the Committee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you regarding INS’ new proposed 

rule on the minimum admission period for B–2 visa holders. 

I am Neil Amrine, president of Guide Service of Washington, and 

I am testifying today on behalf of the Travel Industry Association 

of America or TIA. Guide Service provides tours and other travel 

services for the D.C. area and its attractions for both domestic and 

international travelers. We have about 100 tour guides working in 

20 different languages. 

T.I.A. is the national non-profit organization representing all components of the $545 billion U.S. travel and tourism industry. 

TIA’s mission is to represent the whole of the travel industry, to 

promote and to facilitate increased travel to and within the United 

States. 

Guide Service of Washington and the entire travel industry believes that INS’ proposal to change the admission period for travelers from six months to a shorter and poorly defined reasonable 

period will deter international travel to the U.S. It is entirely possible inspectors could assign admission periods for less than the 

length of a visitor’s tour package. This new proposed rule will not 

increase security, but it will drive travelers to other international 

destinations. 

Based on my years of experience, I can foresee many reasons 

why the INS as a result of the proposed rule would fail to assign 

the correct admission period to each international visitor. Some 

typical situations the rule does not take into consideration are optional add on tours. Most tour operators offer optional add ons for 

their tours; for example, a two day trip to Las Vegas in addition 

to a week long tour of Los Angeles. 

It is not unusual for visitors to want to see additional sights and 

destinations after they have arrived in the United States. The new 

proposed rule would prevent tourists from purchasing these additional services and will restrict the ability of American business to 

sell their product. 

Family. International visitors will often spend additional time 

with family that live in the U.S. after their tour has concluded. 

This means that the tourists will not leave the country when the 

16

rest of the tour group leaves. These tourists do not always know 

exactly what their family member has planned for them when they 

first arrive in the United States. 

Unforeseen events. Trips to the United States do not always go 

as planned. I have seen many instances where thunderstorms have 

shut down international flights out of Dulles or JFK, and the tour 

has to spend an additional night here. I am also aware of times 

when the tour bus breaks down, stranding travelers long enough 

that they miss their flight. Without the flexibility of a set admission period, INS could be swamped with requests for extensions. 

What will the INS do to travelers that only overstay a day or two 

in these situations? 

The primary problem with the INS’ new proposed rule is the lack 

of certainty created by eliminating the minimum admission period. 

If the INS rule is implemented as written, it will be extraordinarily 

damaging to the U.S. tour market. Without the certainty of a minimum admission period, neither the tour company nor the traveler 

can afford the risk of a trip cut short in the United States. 

T.I.A. believes a reasonable alternative would be to reduce the 

minimum admission period for B–2 visa holders to three months or 

90 days. This fixed time period would allow international tour operators and individual travelers to plan their trips to the United 

States with certainty while meeting INS’ goal of significantly reducing the minimum admission period granted to B–2 visitors. 

I would like to thank the House Small Business Committee and 

the SBA for their leadership in assisting small businesses after 

September 11. My company received one of the new Small Business 

Administration economic disaster loans that became available for 

companies in the travel and tourism industry last fall, but I am 

baffled and frustrated that my government would turn around and 

propose a rule so harmful to my industry. As I see it, the federal 

government is providing me with a loan, but making it harder for 

me to pay it back. 

I urge the Members of this Committee to work with the INS, the 

Justice Department and the White House to stop this rule from 

being implemented as written. The travel industry proposal of a 90 

day admission period is a reasonable alternative. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I look forward to answering any questions that you might have. 

[Mr. Amrine’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Del Highfield, owner of the Camping Resort 

of the Palm Beaches, West Palm Beach, Florida. Perhaps in January we should consider a field hearing. 

Mr. HIGHFIELD. I think that would be an excellent idea. You all 

come on down now, you hear? 

Chairman MANZULLO. I think that Commissioner Ziglar might be 

interested in coming there also on the same topic. That is correct. 

Mr. Del Highfield is the owner of his own business testifying on 

behalf of that business and also on behalf of the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds. We look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. HIGHFIELD. We will leave the light on for you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. All right. 

17

STATEMENT OF DEL HIGHFIELD, OWNER, CAMPING RESORT 

OF THE PALM BEACHES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RV PARKS AND CAMPGROUNDS

Mr. HIGHFIELD. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my 

name is Del Highfield, owner of Camping Resort of the Palm 

Beaches located in Palm Beach County, Florida. I am honored to 

be here this morning as a small businessman representing more 

than 8,000 commercial RV parks and campgrounds across the U.S. 

I am here to speak on behalf of my 3,800 colleagues who are 

members of the National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, known as ARVC. ARVC is the national trade association 

that represents the commercial RV park and campground industry 

in the U.S. The industry employs more than 120,000 full-time and 

seasonal employees and serves some 40 million avid RVers and 

campers. It is the strong position of ARVC that this proposed INS 

rule must not be adopted in its current form. 

Allow me to take a moment to tell you about my business and 

its relationship to the issue before you this morning. My park just 

happens to be the exact size of the national average of commercial 

parks within ARVC, just 133 campsites. We are a modest small 

business with gross annual sales of around $800,000. 

We are the quintessential mom and pop operation. We have a 

paid staff of only two full-time and six part-time employees, and 

each year we have an annual occupancy of 87 percent with over 

42,000 site nights rented. Due to the high cost of business in south 

Florida, however, our profit margin is minimal, and high occupancy 

is the only way we stay in business. 

Canadian visitors represent 25 percent of my total revenues or over $200,000 a year. According to the Palm Beach County Tourist 

Development Council, these visitors at our park alone place another $250,000 into our local economy. Without their ability to stay 

long periods of time, our ability to continue to operate would be in 

serious question. 

We are the rule in the Florida tourism market, not the exception. 

Our camping, tourism and hospitality industries heavily depend on 

Canadians. Regulatory changes that would shorten the length of 

stay for Canadians or other international visitors or any new rule 

that discourages long winter stays in the U.S. for foreign visitors 

will have a severe impact on our RV industry, as well as our economy, taxes and employment. 

According to the Florida Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, the number one source of out-of-state campers in Florida 

is Canada. Most Canadians travel to Florida in the winter months. 

They stay longer, and they stay longer than non-campers. They average 45 days and spend approximately $1,400 per trip. 

In all, Canadian campers and RVers contribute approximately $280 million to the Florida economy each year. This large group of 

vacationers is vitally important to the Florida camping industry 

and the state as a whole. Other Sun Belt states would suffer similar losses, we are sure. 

Loss of Canadian RV business in the southern tier will be felt 

by all states along routes from Canada to the south. This will be 

especially true in such tourism dependent areas as Branson, Nashville, Smokey Mountains, Myrtle Beach, Williamsburg, Las Vegas 

18

and other areas as Canadians travel to Sun Belt states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi 

and California. 

The proposed rule will create delays, confusion and frustration at 

all international ports of entry. Detailed questions will be necessary to determine the purpose of an international visitor’s trip. 

Challenges are likely to the validity of documents. INS inspectors 

will either be given extraordinary latitude or will have to follow extremely detailed guidelines. Either course is unattractive. The outcome will be frustrated international visitors who will not want to 

repeat this experience in the future. 

Canadians are not required to have visas, but they are subject 

to the B visa provisions. Presumably, they will be questioned about 

the purpose of their visit in the same manner as overseas folks. 

Like all B visa visitors, they will have to obtain official documents 

verifying legal entry and approved length of stay, clearly a major 

and unsettling change for our Canadian friends. 

One anomaly in the proposed rule would be particularly damaging to RV parks. While home ownership is declared to be a valid 

basis for getting an extension of stay, leasing or renting a residence 

or an RV site is apparently not. Canadian RVers often spend long 

periods in the United States and may lease or rent an RV park site 

for up to six months. We strongly urge that leasing or renting property be treated equally with ownership as a valid reason for extending a visit. 

We also support the proposal of the TIA that a 90 day admission 

be granted to all B visa holders, which could be extended to six 

months. This seems to be fair, reasonable and avoids many of the 

problems in the proposed rule. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, ARVC believes that the proposed 

rule must be substantially modified to ensure minimum negative 

impact on tourism and that extensions of stay should be granted 

for leased or rented property in the same manner as owned property. 

We believe prompt action is critical so this issue is resolved no 

later than late summer so the Canadians and southern tourism 

businesses can adequately prepare for a prosperous and successful 

winter 2002–2003. 

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

[Mr. Highfield’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Ellen White, who is president of the Canadian Snowbird Association. I did not know there was such an association. I see you are wearing your Canadian whites in anticipation 

of the heavy snows coming this winter and then you all coming 

down south to spend lots of tourism dollars. 

I notice that part of your resume is that you are an amateur artist and writer, and I imagine you will be have something else to 

write about after your experience here testifying before the U.S. 

Congress. We look forward to your testimony. 

19

STATEMENT OF ELLEN WHITE, PRESIDENT, CANADIAN 

SNOWBIRD ASSOCIATION 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you very much, Chairman Manzullo and honored Committee Members. I am Ellen White. I am president of the 

Canadian Snowbird Association, and I am an active snowbird. Actually, I am a winter Texan. We are not called snowbirds in Texas. 

I am honored to appear before the House Small Business Committee on behalf of the almost 100,000 members of the Canadian 

Snowbird Association and all of the 447,800 Canadians who enjoyed the United States’ hospitality for 31 days or more each year. 

We fully understand and support the need to control the alien 

population within the United States. The events of September 11 

changed the world forever, and greater security is now a way of 

life. 

The Canadian Snowbird Association is extremely concerned with 

the INS’ proposed changes to the B–2 visitors visa regulations. The 

uncertainty of snowbirds’ access to their winter homes and destinations in the United States and particularly the length of that access has already caused upset, confusion and, in our opinion, will 

result in a substantial reduction in tourism to the United States.

We respect the fact that Canadian retirees are subject to inspection, as are any other visitors to your country, but we have proposed to the INS an amendment to the regulation. Snowbirds vacation for up to six months of the year, primarily in Florida, Texas, 

Arizona and California. Governor Jeb Bush estimates the dollars 

left in Florida alone by foreign travelers at $5.5 billion, generating 

$500 million in state sales tax revenue. 

While a great many of our members own property in the United 

States and live in their second homes for six months of the year, 

as we have already heard, a large number are retired and do not 

own property. Rather, they rent or they travel by recreational vehicles. 

Regardless of the accommodation, Canadian snowbirds pay all 

fees and utilities that are required and applicable United States 

taxes that are requested. We support local restaurants, grocery 

stores and the entertainment industry. As the majority of snowbirds drive, we purchase gasoline in the United States. We use 

American garages for maintenance. Should the regulation pass unchanged, the loss of snowbird activity will reverberate through the 

United States as the enroute states and tourist attractions will also 

be affected by the loss of these visitors. 

Mr. Chairman, last year Canadians spent more than $7 billion 

while here on vacation. Fifteen million Canadians crossed our border, ten million of those trips for pleasure. Additionally, while taking into account the influx of short-term visits to snowbirds by 

friends and family each year, the dollar amount rises considerably. 

Although technically a Canadian does not need a visa to enter 

the United States, the border inspector must have some standard 

to apply. The standard that has been applied to date is the same 

as that applied to a B visitor visa. A person must have a residence 

in Canada which he has no intention of abandoning and visits the 

United States temporarily for pleasure and has the finances to provide for the duration of the stay. 

20

Our concern is that the criteria as enumerated in the proposed 

regulation, 214.2(b)(1), as applied to Canadians will have a devastating effect. It seems logical in determining whether a longer 

stay than 30 days would be fair and reasonable reference would be 

made to the proposed subsection which enumerates the only circumstances which an extension would be granted. 

It does not seem reasonable that one could be granted a longer 

period in the initial inspection for a reason which would not permit 

an extension. There is no criteria for one who simply wants to stay 

longer than 30 days to enjoy the warmth and hospitality of the 

southern state. 

Your southern weather makes us feel better, and it often keeps 

us healthier. At the impulse of an inspecting officer, a snowbird, 

one who contributes to the United States economy, may have their 

winter plans completely destroyed. 

Just yesterday, we received a call from a member who was most 

upset. The gentleman’s neighbor attempted to cross the Ambassador Bridge on Monday, June 17, at approximately 6:00 a.m. He 

was denied entry and told it was because he did not have the deed 

to his Florida residence with him. When handed a form, no written 

reason was given. 

Our member called to ask if there was any official document list 

issued by the INS for snowbirds to follow to ensure that they could 

travel. As far as we know, there is none. I do know, however, that 

we have another frightened snowbird, and the regulation has not 

even gone into effect. 

On Monday, Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge assured 

our Deputy Prime Minister John Manley that Canadians would not 

be affected by those proposed regulations. Chairman Manzullo, we 

were thrilled by the announcement. Now all we ask is that his 

promise be followed through and written into the regulation. 

To that end, we will submit into the record a copy of our letter 

sent to Mr. Ziglar of the INS with our proposed wording to clarify 

the status of Canadians. 

[Ms. White’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. That letter will be admitted as part of the 

record and as part of your testimony. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Our next witness and last witness is Mark 

Hjelle, vice-president and general counsel, The Brickman Group, 

from Langhorne, Pennsylvania, speaking on behalf of the American 

Nursery & Landscape Association. It is not really related to this 

hearing, but——

Mr. HJELLE. I will try to tie it in. 

Chairman MANZULLO [continuing]. You are invited to comment, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARK HJELLE, VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, THE BRICKMAN GROUP, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HJELLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman 

Manzullo, Representative Velazquez and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns on the 

21

impact of the recent INS proposal to limit the period of admission 

for B–2 non-immigrant alien tourist visas. 

My name is Mark Hjelle, and I am vice-president and general 

counsel of The Brickman Group headquartered in Langhorne, 

Pennsylvania. Brickman is a privately held and family owned company that has been in business since 1939. Brickman employs approximately 2,000 full-time employees and another 5,000 seasonal 

workers. Brickman generates over $300 million in annual revenues 

from businesses in 28 states. 

My comments also reflect the concerns of the American Nursery 

& Landscape Association and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America, our industry’s two national trade associations. At 

first glance, it may seem as if the nursery and landscape industry 

does not have an interest in the INS proposal to limit the duration 

of B–2 tourist visas. This proposal would not affect the H–2B nonimmigrant work visas that Brickman and other green industry 

companies utilize in order to make up shortfalls in their seasonal 

work forces or any other business visa category, as far as I can tell. 

In addition, it is not entirely clear to me that the proposed INS 

requirement would have a chilling effect on tourism. Persons who 

plan to come to America as a tourist for more than 30 days certainly should have a plan for how they are going to spend that 

time. I do not have a particular problem with requiring someone 

who is going to be here that long as a tourist to present a plan of 

their activities while in this country. 

On the other hand, I do not believe that reducing the default period is going to result in better INS control of aliens. The Committee is quite right that an individual can overstay a 30 day visa 

as easily as any other visa. The real question is what the INS proposes to do in 30, 60 or 90 days that they currently are not doing 

for those overstaying six month visas. 

However, considering the magnitude of this country’s economic 

dependence on foreign travelers for business, as well as tourism, it 

is valuable that we are having this discussion. The nursery and 

landscape industry is extremely sensitive to issues involving immigration policy as our businesses are highly dependent on alien 

labor.

The reliance of the green industry on foreign labor is primarily 

borne out of the historic reluctance of U.S. domestic workers to 

pursue the employment opportunities offered in this rapidly growing industry with estimated annual revenues of $14 billion. Many 

jobs in the green industry are low skilled, physically demanding, 

seasonal and must be performed in a variety of inclement weather 

conditions. 

Therefore, while our industry is exceedingly security conscious, 

we strongly urge this Committee and Congress as a whole to be 

very careful not to unduly restrict alien movements or create well 

intended administrative remedies that quickly turn into roadblocks 

that negatively impact the flow of legal and essential workers into 

this country. 

As an example of this well intentioned but poorly executed administrative remedy I am talking about is an INS recent policy requiring security checks on all named beneficiaries for H–2B nonimmigrant work visas. It is completely understandable why the 

22

INS would want to check the backgrounds of these individuals. 

However, the reality of the situation is that the processing of these 

applications is already severely backlogged. 

With no additional resources being provided to the INS for implementation of this new security check, current backlogs, as much as 

75 days in some offices, will undoubtedly grow longer, forcing many 

employers to either miss their dates of need or pay a per petition 

fee of $1,000 for so-called premium processing. 

The surge of anti-immigrant fervor after the 9–11 tragedies, coupled with difficult and time consuming border crossings, has greatly impacted many foreign workers legally employed in the green industry. Many were afraid to return to their native countries and 

are now working with fraudulent work authorization documents. 

Others were too scared to return to America regardless of the fact 

they had good paying jobs with long-term security waiting for them 

here. 

As a result, many employers in our industry lost valuable and 

trusted workers. Consequently, we are greatly concerned with the 

ramifications limiting tourist visits will ultimately have on other 

visa programs for those aliens seeking to gain lawful entry into the 

U.S. for non-tourist purposes like employment. 

When all is said and done, I do not believe reducing the default 

period on B–2 tourist visas is a major problem. I do see that there 

could be potential benefits, but I strongly encourage Congress to 

continue to fight on behalf of small businesses everywhere to ensure a continued safe and smooth flow of lawful aliens into and out 

of America. 

This is essential for the purposes of travel and tourism, as well 

as employment opportunities offered by guest worker programs by 

industries unable to attract sufficient U.S. domestic workers. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. 

[Mr. Hjelle’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you very much. I understand the 

relevance because you are perceiving a pattern that could directly 

impact your industry, and I appreciate your tying that in. 

I have several questions here. Mr. Ziglar, it must be ten to one 

against you on the witness table, including the President’s brother. 

This is not an easy situation for you to be in, but I guess you asked 

for it by becoming the Director of the INS. We appreciate the hard 

work that you are putting in and certainly appreciate your heart 

and wanting to do what is best for the nation. 

I do have some questions. I have the proposed rule in front of 

me. Do you have that in front of you, Commissioner? I want to 

make particular reference to it. It is on page 18,068. Not that many 

are directed to this. It is about six pages on this particular regulation. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I have it right here. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Page 18,068. That is correct. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I have it. I just have to find it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. It is the area that talks about the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It is in the upper 

left-hand corner. Do you see that, Commissioner? 

23

This was what Mr. Sullivan had testified to. He said the rule is 

not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Act. The statement here says, ‘‘This rule 

will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more, a major increase in cost or prices or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or on the ability of the U.S. based companies to compete 

...’’

Could you tell me what documentation and what study and what 

econometric designs were used to come to that conclusion? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Being outnumbered ten to one, I grew up in Mississippi. I know how it is to be outnumbered ten to one. 

Let me make a comment. I did not ask for this job. I was recruited for it. 

Mr. Chairman, the analysis, as I understand it, that was undertaken here was based upon the statistics that we had in front of 

us with respect to the average median length of stay of individuals 

who are coming into the country. 

Keeping in mind, of course, that anyone coming in under the visa 

waiver program, which has about 28 countries, major countries, 

which the major portion of our tourism comes in from, they are not 

affected by this because the visa waiver program has its own set 

of rules unimpacted on this. 

The Canadians, for example, there is again this misperception 

issue with respect to Canadians, and that is that, as you know, Canadians come in without any requirement of an I–94 being processed. In fact, up until September 11, we did not even basically require Canadians to document that they were Canadian citizens. 

Maybe some ID. No passport. Now we at least ask for some kind 

of ID to establish some prima facie case that they are Canadians, 

but they are not asked for I–94s. 

The I–94 is the vehicle by which the fair and reasonable time 

will be documented on that. There is nothing in these regulations 

that will require the I–94 to be processed, and so the Canadians 

will automatically by virtue of the way it is structured fall under 

a six month period, which is the maximum period of stay under the 

regulations as it was the default period before. That is, a fair reading of the regulations would suggest to you that is the way now. 

Going back to your question, based upon the statistics that we 

had in front of us and us even assuming that you had some kind 

of 30 day maximum limit, which it is not, and I keep saying that. 

It is not. It would have not a material impact on the economy unless everyone who stayed over 30 days just refused to give us any 

information about the purpose of the intended length of their stay. 

If you look at it from a common sense point of view, and on the 

statistics it would suggest to you that the way the regulations are 

structured would not have that impact. 

I must repeat again that all that we are asking for is that somebody who comes here on——

Chairman MANZULLO. I understand, but, I mean, when you made 

this statement, prior to making the statement had you talked to 

any of these industry groups here? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I did not personally, but our——

24

Chairman MANZULLO. Was anybody here talked to by INS to 

quantify this statement? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, I did not personally, but I know that our people were talking to individuals in the industries.

Chairman MANZULLO. These people here represent the industries. Is there anybody here from INS that talked to anybody in the 

industry? Do you want to raise your hand? 

I would submit, Commissioner, that what has happened here is 

somebody took a guess at this. When you look at the State of Florida alone, which is it three billion or five billion, Ms. Dana? Five 

billion? 

Ms. DANA. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The total amount. 

Ms. DANA. Of international visitors? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Yes. 

Ms. DANA. We have eight million that come in. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you put the mike up to you, please? 

Ms. DANA. Annually, we have eight million international visitors, 

and that is of the 70 million that come in. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And how much do they spend? 

Ms. DANA. We estimate $8 billion. 

Chairman MANZULLO. $8 billion. Did anybody from INS confer 

with you or the State of Florida prior to the promulgation of this 

proposed regulation as to the economic impact? 

Ms. DANA. No, sir, not on this issue. We have worked well with 

the INS, but not on this issue have we been consulted. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Commissioner Ziglar, I guess what I am 

looking at here and the reason I am asking this question is I think 

that this is conjecture that appears in these regulations. 

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act is critical to the small business industry. That is one of the reasons this 

Committee exists. What we see here is, and I will be quite frank 

with you, a lack of scholarship that went into this statement. 

Mr. Sullivan talked about it. The people in the various industries 

talked about it. If you are going to even consider going ahead with 

this rule, I would suggest you withdraw it and then comply with 

SBREFA before you put out a new proposed regulation. 

That is a tremendous concern to us because I think somebody 

here just guessed at it. When you look at the misunderstanding 

coming from this proposed rule to the fact that somebody from INS 

has already not allowed a Canadian resident to come in without 

their deed, I do not know what you looked at, but it is obvious the 

industry was not consulted. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say, number one, about 

the Canadian that came in. I just asked while this was going on 

to find out the name of that person and the name of the inspector 

because I find that a bit surprising given the fact that we do not 

generally make inquiries of Canadians other than some basic identification unless there is a reason the inspector has to question the 

admissibility of that person. Not all Canadians are admissible. 

There are reasons not to. 

We put Canadians like everybody else in the secondary from 

time to time and raise questions. Now, there may be some situation 

here where there is a question that needed to be raised, and I 

25

think in the absence of more facts it is a bit unfair to use this as 

an example. 

Mr. Chairman, also let me just say this. A fair reading of the regulation does not suggest that we have a 30 day maximum period 

for people coming in. We have a fair and reasonable time that they 

will be granted based upon the intent, purpose and length of the 

proposed trip. 

If you read the regulation, that is what it says. I do not know 

how you build an assumption on the economic impact of a regulation if people either intentionally or unintentionally misread it for 

whatever purpose. 

Chairman MANZULLO. It is not the assumption. The issue is it is 

not so much the legal effect. I am sorry. It is not so much the legal 

language of a regulation. It is how people interpret it. 

You know, I practiced law for 22 years. I have with me Carol 

Weineke, who has been with me since 1971. She has done immigration law in the office for ten years, and she has been through probably 5,000 cases. She teaches immigration law to other congressional offices. 

This is extremely confusing. It is so confusing. The confusion is 

so paramount that the only way to stop the confusion is simply to 

withdraw the regulation and say that this does not make sense. We 

do not want to stop tourism because the best of intentions on the 

part of INS would not get around the confusion that could cause 

the harm to the tourism industry. 

I am not blaming the INS for causing the confusion. I know that 

you worked hard with the press in order to get out the word as to 

the exact nature of this. 

Ms. Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Commissioner, given the testimony that we heard here from 

all the witnesses, including the President’s brother, what type of 

steps are you prepared to undertake? It is the opinion of everyone 

here that this indeed will have an economic impact on small businesses. What will be the type of action that you will take in order 

to address these concerns? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congresswoman, first let me point out that this is 

not a regulation by the INS in the vacuum. This is a regulation 

that was fashioned throughout the Administration with a number 

of people involved in it. We had a hand in it. Obviously we are the 

authority issuing that regulation. 

It is also a proposed regulation. It is not in effect. It is out there. 

We have gotten a lot of comments. We obviously will consider those 

comments. I have read some of them myself. We will as an Administration—not as the INS alone, but the Administration. We will 

consider those comments, as well as the comments that have been 

made here today and made by Members of Congress both publicly 

and privately. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I understand. Mr. Commissioner, at the beginning of your testimony you said that there is misconception and 

misinterpretation, and there is so much confusion. If there has 

been an industry in our economy that has been impacted the most 

after the events of September 11, it is the tourism industry. Then 

you add your proposed regulation. That brings more confusion and, 

26

therefore, will have a more negative impact on these type of businesses. 

My question to you is based on what we heard. Are you prepared 

today to take the extraordinary step of convening a panel the same 

way we do with OSHA and EPA to work on this issue? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, I am certainly——

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And, yes, SBREFA, and based on the assertion 

from the Chief Counsel of SBA, Mr. Tom Sullivan, that indeed this 

will have an economic impact on small business. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, I am certainly willing to discuss this with various components of the industry. Convening a panel runs into the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, so I am not sure that I would 

convene a panel, but I am certainly willing to advise and deal with 

the industry in the context that it does not violate the law. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to hear Mr. Tom Sullivan’s opinion 

on this. Will that affect SBREFA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Commissioner Ziglar may not be as familiar with 

this panel process as our colleagues at EPA and OSHA are.

Basically, pre-proposal EPA and OSHA sit down with folks like 

the small business owners that are represented around this table 

and try to, at one point, put out the agency’s intention. In the case 

of INS that is to protect our nation’s borders, and, at the same 

time, flush out how they can do that while minimizing the economic impact on small business. 

This is a formalized panel process with OMB, Dr. John Graham, 

who heads their regulatory office there, our office and the promulgating agency. While INS is not subject to the panel requirement, 

what the Congresswoman does bring up is would we be able, in the 

time frame that is allowed between proposed and final rules, to sit 

down with Office of Advocacy, representatives from the small business groups, travel and tourism, and INS to flush out whether 

there is in fact a less burdensome alternative that would preserve 

the security of small business, but also preserve the security of our 

nation’s borders. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I was not aware of this panel process. I am not 

skilled in bureaucratic matters. I apologize. I do know about the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, now that you are part of the federal government I guess that you have to become more accustomed to that. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I sometimes am not surprised why the American 

people are so cynical about government with all the bureaucracy 

we have sometimes, but I am certainly happy to work with industry. That is where I spent my career. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, I just would like for you to clarify 

to the Commissioner that FACA does not apply. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Actually, I know that FACA, the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, does not apply to the panels convened by EPA and 

OSHA. 

I would be happy to consult with the Committee subsequent to 

this hearing on whether or not there are FACA considerations that 

would prevent Commissioner Ziglar from sitting down with our office, small businesses and really hammering out, in addition to the 

10,000 comments that have been received by INS, a solution that 

27

preserves both the security of small business and the security of 

our country. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Commissioner, would you be prepared to say 

that you will convene such a panel? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congresswoman, I am more than happy to do whatever makes sense in the context of getting the right input. Whether 

it is FACA or a panel or whatever makes sense, I am happy to do 

that. 

I just know I ran into this FACA thing on the entry/exit system, 

so I am, you know, a little sensitive to trying to reach out to industry, and now we have all these crazy—we have all these rules. Excuse me. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. You said it. I did not say it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I want to make sure that that remark, 

crazy, gets into the record. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Commissioner, is that a yes? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Yes. I am more than happy to do whatever makes 

sense. This panel thing, I know nothing about it other than what 

I have just been told. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like for Mr. Sullivan to explain to the 

witnesses here and to me what type of recourse the people and the 

businesses that will be impacted by this proposed rule will have if 

we do not have a panel that really addresses some of the issues 

that have been raised this morning. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think what we have heard today through the 

statements of small business owners and trade associations is that 

if the rule is implemented without the degree of certainty that is 

necessary as written then there may not be recourse other than a 

severe detrimental financial effect to small businesses. 

What we have heard from the Commissioner right now is very 

encouraging, and that is to go beyond the letter of the rule making 

process, which can be bureaucratic, and sit down with interested 

groups so that we can hammer out a less burdensome solution. 

I know that after hearing the Commissioner’s personal commitment to do that and also hearing of that commitment within the 

government that his word constitutes a significant movement in a 

direction to appease small business concerns. 

I am pleased that he is going to be responsive to small business 

interests and I am also pleased that he is going to be responsive 

and report back regularly to this Committee on how we have progressed. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I just want to make it clear that if nothing happens in terms of putting together a process, a panel review process, 

for these businesses to be able to discuss and for the agency that 

proposed the rule to understand and to conclude that indeed there 

is not going to be an economic impact or not. 

We do not know based on the testimony that we heard; if nothing 

happened where we put together a vehicle for this to be clarified 

that there is indeed a legal recourse for those businesses that will 

be impacted. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congresswoman, I just want to make it clear that 

I am one member of a big Administration. You certainly have my 

expression of willingness to deal with this. I cannot just on my own 

28

commit to any particular format, but certainly whatever powers of 

persuasion I have, I will attempt to make sure that that happens. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, I just want to mention here that when the 

Administration came out with the prescription drug card, community pharmacists all over the country raised a red flag, and they 

said they would be impacted. 

When a vehicle was not proposed for them to be able to present 

their case or make their case, they went to Court. Then there was 

a judicial decision made to that effect. What we are following here 

is the letter of the law regarding SBREFA. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congresswoman, I would like to respond to your 

original question, because I feel as though I have not been completely responsive. You asked what the legal recourse is, and the 

legal recourse is to challenge a rule in Federal Court that the agency’s decision was made arbitrarily or capriciously. 

Now, I think that what we have heard both from myself and 

from the Commissioner is that we would not like for it to get to 

that point because, as we know, it is a lengthy and expensive process when you go through this type of litigation, which does not necessarily immediately help the purposes of INS, this rule, and the 

economic security of small business. 

I think what you have heard is the commitment from both of us 

to sit down and try to put aside bureaucratic processes and administrative legal actions and work through this so that we have a 

good solution. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Grucci. 

Mr. GRUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if you can 

hear me or not, but I will try anyway. First, let me just thank you 

for your leadership on this issue and Ranking Member Velazquez 

for her leadership on this. 

I just need to comment. An 18,068 page document? I guess it 

takes the brightest minds in Washington to come up with a concise 

document like that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. If the gentleman would yield? The proposed regulation I think is four or five pages, but it is part of an 

18,068 page document. 

Mr. GRUCCI. That is correct. The Federal Register. Right. Thank 

God for Reagan’s Paper Reduction Act, or this thing could have 

swelled to 18,070 pages. It could have really gotten out of control. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that it did not work. 

Mr. GRUCCI. Reclaiming my time, Commissioner, first let me applaud you for your quick action on behalf of the INS to take up the 

issue of who comes into our country very seriously and try to make 

our borders safe. 

I would like to address this issue from a different direction if I 

may, and I hear what this esteemed panel has been saying. I have 

been fighting the fight with the travel agencies on an issue that I 

believe to be very important to the small businesses. It is, our five 

major airlines decided unilaterally to reduce their commissions to 

the airlines—to the travel agencies; I am sorry—and all at the 

same time keeping their own on-line travel agent going and paying 

them commissions. 

29

I think that is wrong. They received a hell of a wallop, and the 

Members of Congress got a sucker punch, I believe. That being 

said, the industry has expressed their concerns here today about 

being able to continue to go forward. 

The issue of the length of stay may have some relevance to being 

able to thwart another attack, but I believe, as I heard one of the 

speakers say, that to me it would make more sense to put that effort, that energy, that money and that time into tracking, detection, research. 

Yesterday I attended a technical seminar given by one of the corporations in my district, Symbol Technology, who is part of a consortium to come up with a whole new tracking methodology for 

visas, for passports, et cetera. It was an eye opener the technology 

that sits out there. 

We are not talking about having to reinvent the wheel. We are 

talking about taking systems that are currently out there and readapting them for current use. That would seem to make a lot of 

sense to me. 

The elimination of the length of stay from 60 days down to 30 

days. If someone is going to come in there—— Chairman MANZULLO. Six months. 

Mr. GRUCCI. I am sorry. Six months down to 30 days. If somebody is going to come here to do some damage, they are going to 

come, and they are going to get in here, and they are going to do 

it. Certainly it only took a matter of hours for our airlines to be 

used as weapons of mass destruction, and someone conceivably 

could have fit in that 30 day window of opportunity that is now 

being proposed. 

We have situations where our borders are porous, that people are 

flowing through undetected without any visas. I have extended an 

invitation. I know circumstances have arisen on a number of occasions that prevented you from visiting the district that I represent 

to demonstrate to you firsthand some of the problems that we have 

with the illegal immigration, the amount of people that are in a 

community that is just deteriorating the community and tearing it 

apart. 

I would like to extend to you another opportunity for you or a 

deputy of yours to come to visit the district. I would hope that we 

could arrange a date. I understand the incidences that happened 

in the past have got in the way of that, and I do not fault you for 

that, but I would like at the conclusion of this hearing to have a 

moment of your time to confirm a time when we can get together. 

I think it is important that you see the issue firsthand. 

Do you believe that by doing this six months to 30 days is a better approach than trying to tighten up our borders by preventing 

the illegal immigrants from coming in and putting in a stronger 

and a more advanced tracking mechanism so that we do not impact 

the tourism industry? 

There are good people that do come to this country. We do not 

want to prevent them from coming. We do not want to stop them 

from getting here, and we do not want to impact them to a point 

where they say listen, it just does not make any sense. 

I do not believe that a great deal of people come specifically to 

stay in my district, but they certainly come to visit New York, and 

30

they come and they spend time out in my district. My area is kind 

of an afterthought of New York City. After they go to the city and 

they see all the great things there are in the city, they come out 

and look at the wine areas. They come to the beaches. They spend 

several weekends out in our tourism area. 

That is good for our tourism industry. I would hate to see that 

evaporate because people feel that they have a limited amount of 

time to spend in the United States. And say I will take my money 

and my time, and I will go elsewhere in the world. 

I would like to hear your thoughts on addressing the issue of detection and tracking versus collapsing the time coming into the 

country. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congressman, let me articulate my vision of how we 

ought to be doing this business. I rarely get a chance to do this in 

a hearing because it is so specific questions. 

My vision of this is that our borders start a long way away from 

our physical borders. They start out there in some country that has 

a name. There are people there who want to come into the United 

States. They go to the consular, unless they are a visa waiver. They 

go to the consular office to get a visa. 

Now, what we need to have is intelligence information that is 

available at that consular office that says that this is someone that 

we do not want to give a visa to. That is where it starts is good 

intelligence that is shared with all of the points of contact that 

these people may have and all the law enforcement agencies. 

Let us take the 19 hijackers. There was at the time they got 

their visas no intelligence information on them, so they got to the 

port of entry, and they came into the United States. Fifteen of 

them came in on B–2s, three of them came on B–1s, and one came 

on an F, I believe it was. Fifteen of those people, including Mohammed Atta and Alshehri, came in here on B–2s. They were granted 

automatically six months to stay in the United States. 

Now, we do not have an effective entry/exit tracking system. We 

do not have yet and we do not yet have an effective student tracking system. We are putting both of those in place. 

We do have the I–94 process, which is very effective on counting 

who is coming in, but we miss 15 percent of them on the way out. 

Even though it is fairly paper based, it is in a database, so we do 

have a way of figuring out when people are here and most of whom 

leave when they leave, but it is slow. It is getting better. 

I am absolutely committed to bringing together all of these technological resources so that we have information available at every 

point that it needs to be available. It is not just INS information. 

It is FBI, CIA, Department of State, NSA, whoever it happens to 

be, that we have a profile of these people in terms of I do not mean 

profiling, but who are these people that are coming here. 

In any situation that you have, there are going to be people that 

we do not have any intelligence information about. They may be 

young. They may have avoided the law, but they are here with an 

intent to do something. Mohammed Atta and those guys came in 

here, and they had six months to be in this country. They did not 

concoct that conspiracy overnight. That conspiracy was concocted 

over a long period of time. They ran under the radar screen. 

31

Under this new proposal, what the intent of it is from a security 

point of view is to do several things. Number one is that when people get here and they want to come to the United States, our inspectors ask them a question, and that is what is the purpose of 

your trip, and how long do you intend to be here. 

Now, legitimate travelers do not have a problem with that, I do 

not believe. They say okay, I am coming to see Aunt Tillie, and I 

am going to be here six weeks. Well, in the normal course of things 

under this new regime we would probably give them two months. 

We always try to give a little bit additional like on business visas 

than they ask for. 

If somebody comes here and says oh, gee, I do not know. I am 

just coming to the U.S., and I am going to hang out around here. 

I do not have any intention of where I am going or where I am 

staying. That is where the 30 day default provision comes in. 

In the case of a guy or people like Mohammed Atta and those 

kind of people, I think, frankly, that is a good rule, but from an 

enforcement——

Mr. GRUCCI. If I may, Commissioner? If you are going to ask that 

question and you are going to get an answer like that, to me that 

would send up a huge red flag. Maybe this person ought not to be 

given access at all until we find out exactly what they are going 

to do. Why default to 30 days, let the person in for 30 days and 

then see what they are going to do? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, Congressman, maybe I was being a hair facetious. The fact is that a lot of people come to this country and say 

I just wanted to come to the U.S. I want to travel around. I do not 

really have any particular time frame that I want to leave, but I 

know I have six months. 

In a case like that, then our inspectors will ask a lot of additional 

questions. I mean, our inspectors by virtue of the 500 million people they see every year, they get a second sense about people, and 

that is when we put them in a secondary. If we are not asking 

them questions, but we are just by default under the law giving 

them six months, we have a lot less eyesight on who these people 

are. That is part of this. 

It also has an enforcement element to it, and that is that that 

person who comes in here and gets 30 days, if they stay past 30 

days they are in overstay status. Now, if they have six months and 

we have some concern about them—they are here, but they are in 

status—it is hard for us to do anything. If they are going to throw 

themselves out of status, then we have a grounds if we have some 

concerns about them to go pick them up and send them elsewhere. 

We have that. 

We believe that this new rule—not a 30 day rule, but the new 

rule—also will facilitate the beginning of our entry/exit system implementation. We believe that it is creating the transition area for 

us to do the entry/exit. 

I think also that if we have regulations that say when you come 

here you have to state why you are here and how long you are 

going to be here, I think that has a deterrent effect. That makes 

people understand that if they are legitimate that is not a problem, 

but it is a deterrent effect. It says that the United States is serious 

32

about knowing who is in our country and the conditions under 

which they come. 

I doubt very seriously that Joe Six Pack out there—— Mr. GRUCCI. I do not think it is the questions that are creating 

the problem, if I may. I do not think it is the questions of asking 

who are you, where do you come from, what are you going to do 

and how long you are going to stay here that is the issue. 

The issue to me seems to be that we are not doing a good enough 

job, and I believe that you will agree. We are not doing a good 

enough job in stopping the illegal immigrants from coming in. 

We have taken great steps, I believe some of it at your direction, 

to divide the INS into sections and to strengthen up areas, and I 

would hope that that would at least give us an agent that we can 

get into the New York area that can come out and do enforcement, 

instead of being told that we do not have anybody that could come 

out and take a look at illegal immigration. 

It just seems to me that the issue, in using your own example 

that our borders start in some far off land with a different name, 

that we ought to have the intelligence on that person before they 

even come to apply for the visas. 

If we knew that when someone applied for a visa hey, this is a 

bad guy, we better not let this person in if there is some tracking 

taking place by the CIA or the FBI or the Coast Guard or some 

other agency or even your own agency, then it does not matter if 

it is a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day or 120 days that they are allowed. 

If this person is a bad guy and we could capture that bad guy 

by just asking a few questions, then it seems like we should be able 

to beef up our intelligence network and our information gathering 

system to even prevent that person from getting the opportunity to 

apply for a visa. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. Grucci, let me go to Mr. Issa here to 

make sure everybody has an opportunity. 

Mr. GRUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner, I am going to follow up directly on Mr. Grucci’s 

start and just do a little arithmetic calculation. We have 8.5 million, according to the U.S. Census, overstays, illegals, all of them 

combined, people who are not supposed to be here that we estimate 

are here. We did that on a recent census. 

That means we had 19 bad guys who murdered 3,000 Americans, 

but for each one of those we have 447,368 people that could be bad, 

but we do not know because we do not know where they are. We 

just know that that is the estimated amount of undocumented people in this country, most of whom commit no crimes. That gives me 

kind of the whole question. 

You know, I very much support the fact that you are taking action, and I know in this town that if you do not want to be criticized, do nothing, and you can usually get away with it, so I do not 

want to overly criticize you on putting up the concept of a 30 day 

default. I do think, during the process, if you hear the kinds of 

things you heard here today, you will be much more in doubt about 

‘‘when nobody asks for any more, give them 30 days’’. 

Certainly I would agree that if someone says I just want to come 

here and spend a week that giving 30 days is reasonable. The quesVerDate Aug 23 2002 01:41 Aug 30, 2002 Jkt 081127 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A127.XXX A127
33

tion is if somebody says I want to come here, and I want to stay 

for an indeterminative period of time up to six months. I am going 

to go see this sight and this sight and this sight. 

Then I happen to support this panel that probably, unless you 

have research that has been reasonably done, that you probably 

ought to give it to most people because of the 447,000 plus people 

that you are not even addressing, and the tens of millions of people 

who come to this country just to be here on vacation, snowbirds in 

not just Florida, but in Arizona and in California, it would be a 

problem. They would like to say I am going to stay here until the 

weather warms up. Therefore, you know, I would like more than 

a month. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Having said that, I would like to dovetail further on 

this whole question of outside the borders, at the borders, inside 

the borders and ask you a question that rises from that immigration reform and is still pending to the breakup of the INS versus 

the Border Patrol and I guess now the switch to Homeland Defense 

being in your hierarchy. 

The secondary checkpoints that are in my district in San 

Clemente and Temecula, I believe, are no longer needed or not effective. We sometimes disagree on some of these points. How much 

do they cost to operate with those 270 personnel, at least one of 

whom could potentially be looking for criminal aliens in Mr. 

Grucci’s district? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congressman, I am sorry. I do not have the budget 

figures on that particularly. I did not anticipate this sort of question in preparing for those kind of numbers, but I will be glad to 

get it to you. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I am going to give you just the opportunity. My 

staff has been requesting that for more than two months and has 

not been able to get it. 

This afternoon at 2:00 p.m., INS witness Joseph Green will testify in front of the Immigration Border Security and Claims Subcommittee, of which I am on. I would appreciate it if the information could be there at that time after several months of official requests and not getting it. 

I support Mr. Grucci’s very statement and I think some of the 

other statements that yes, we will go along with you I am sure on 

reasonable changes that include perhaps some form of shortening 

for people who say I am only coming for a week. Give him 30 days. 

I do not think in the end, after your evaluation of comments and 

criticisms, that there will not be a tendency by all of us here, all 

of us in the small business community, to try to accommodate this 

initiative of yours because in fact we should not just punish people 

who try to have solutions that may help. 

At the same time, to believe that with 8.5 million undocumented 

people in this country that we do not know where they are, many 

of whom came in and overstayed months or years ago, that 270 

people waving 200,000 people a day through a checkpoint knowing 

that one in 20 of those is an undocumented worker and only catching ten per checkpoint per day is the solution. 

I hope that just as we are working with you, and the small business community wants to be supportive as much as possible, that 

34

you also will look at these other areas and give us the safety we 

could get if we removed thousands of criminal aliens every year instead of necessarily concentrating on the same old game of well, 

this being a deterrent. 

As someone who is a border region congressman, to say it is a 

deterrent to put 270 people 70 miles inside our country and say 

that is deterring when there are 8.5 million people north and east 

of them, I have to ask you to please re-evaluate that, and I would 

very much appreciate getting the cost figures so we can begin evaluating the cost effectiveness of that. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I just would like to ask the Commissioner. Out 

of the 19 hijackers, how many were illegal or undocumented? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, they all came in legally. At the time that it 

happened, I believe three of them were out of status. I believe that 

is correct. Three of them were out of status, overstays. 

Mr. ISSA. And one was incarcerated. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, then you have to go with 20. Yes. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. Commissioner—— Mr. ZIGLAR. By the way, could I add one thing? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Of course. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Of that 8.5 million estimate, and there are various 

estimates, of course, out there, approximately—— Mr. ISSA. I only took the census from the United States Census. 

I do not have a better one. I happen to think it is a lot higher, but 

my opinion is more subjective. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, I am just saying there are a lot of estimates. 

That is one that you recited. 

Our estimate is that about 40 percent of that 8.5 million are people who came here in overstay status, as opposed to people who 

came across the border illegally, so they came here, were inspected 

and then put themselves in overstay status. 

I think one of the reasons that we suggested this regulation was 

that we believe it does have a deterrent effect on the overstay part 

of that component. 

Mr. ISSA. If I could have the indulgence of the Chair? I want to 

support that concept because I do believe that when someone is encouraged to just kind of hang around for six months when they 

came in just saying they wanted to stay a week and see Auntie 

that you may very well be right. At the end of a month they begin 

working. They begin working somewhere for cash. They begin 

transitioning into being more of an overstay. 

That is where I want to be very supportive, of not announcing 

any initiative as dead on arrival until we look at the tradeoffs, but 

I think, having gotten the governor before I left, the point is that 

there are large groups of people who regularly ask for, have valid 

reasons and should be granted far more than 30 days, and we recognize that there is a middle ground that I very much hope when 

you are looking at the proposed rule versus the final rule that you 

would make those adjustments. 

At the same time, you have a huge job on your plate in other 

areas, and I think this Committee and the small business community and the American people want to be supportive to find out how 

we can help you with the 8.5 million, which may rise or fall, based 

35

on your initiatives, a few million, but will still always be a lot bigger than 19 or 20. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congressman, the intent of this regulation is not to 

stick everybody with 30 days, as I have said a hundred times. That 

person that comes in on a visa and says, you know, I want to tour 

the United States and I may be here two or three months, the next 

question is okay, give us an idea of where you want to tour. 

You know, based upon the questioning they will give them a 

three month admission period or whatever happens to be fair and 

reasonable for the purpose of the trip. That is the whole purpose 

of the regulation. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. Highfield is shaking his head. Would 

you respond to that question and answer? 

Mr. HIGHFIELD. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, represent 

a little, tiny business person, and I can tell you that I grew up in 

Pontiac. The questions that they asked when I would go across to 

go drinking in Windsor, okay, when it was 18 years old across the 

way——

Chairman MANZULLO. Are you talking about the rib place just 

over the border? 

Mr. HIGHFIELD. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Mr. ISSA. What did they ask when you came back is the question. 

Mr. HIGHFIELD. We knew the great questions and the great answers to give. Quite frankly, from a practical standpoint for those 

that have been doing it, these type of question things are, quite 

frankly, a crock. 

If you are going to allow people to come in, just give them a defined reason. We are renting a campsite for five months in Corpus 

Christi. Okay. Here it is. Okay. Give us six months. 

This 30 day thing is just impractical. I used to go back and forth 

across the border hearing all that stuff all the time. This kind of 

stuff will have absolutely no effect except to slow it down, and once 

in a while if you get a person who is a little grouchy and the INS 

inspector or the Customs person does not like it, boom. He is going 

to give him the shaft. That is the only way it works. 

I am sorry about speaking English, but that is the bottom line. 

Let us be practical. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I did not mean to get into your fraternity 

days. 

I have a couple more questions, and that is just for clarification. 

Am I correct in saying that the requests for extensions do not apply 

to Canadians? Is that correct? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. The way it works is because of the special status 

that Canadians have——

Chairman MANZULLO. Right. 

Mr. ZIGLAR [continuing]. They would come in without an I–94, 

which means that they would in effect default to six months so that 

if they wanted to stay additional beyond that six month period 

then they would have to seek an extension, but that is the way it 

is now, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The cost of travel is in the thousands. We 

did some research. A tourist class airfare from Warsaw to Chicago 

is around $2,000. From Bombay is about the same. I say that beVerDate Aug 23 2002 01:41 Aug 30, 2002 Jkt 081127 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A127.XXX A127
36

cause we have a lot of Poles and a lot of Indians in our congressional district. 

Let me just give the experience of Carol Weineke again who has 

been through this hundreds, if not thousands, of times. She is the 

person in my office who does the actual immigration work that is 

the expert as far as I am concerned. 

Her question, which is mine, is with the cost of travel in the 

thousands of dollars, individuals when they arrive soon discover 

there is much to see and at that point realize more time is needed. 

This is Mr. Amrine’s statement and Mr. Highfield’s. To file an extension today takes 60 to 125 days to adjudicate with a cost of over 

$100 to make the application to extend. 

Coming from a person who actually assists my constituents in 

the extension process, what we are submitting to you today is the 

extension requests that you will have if this proposed regulation 

goes into effect, there will not be enough federal employees in the 

United States at every single agency to begin to handle those adjudications when today a lot of people are out of status between the 

time when their six months ends and they are waiting for an additional amount of time. 

My question goes to the statement that was made by Mr. 

McDermott that there really is not enough INS personnel. There 

could never be enough personnel in order to enforce this regulation. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, let me make a couple of points. Part 

of it is good news, and that is that at two of our service centers 

we are down to 30 days for processing I–539s, which include extensions and other things. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Does that include Chicago Service Center? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. The other two of them are at 60 days, and we hope 

to have them at 30 days, which would cover the entire country, 

within the next couple of months, so we are making some real 

progress on that. 

Now, on the question of extensions I have no quarrel, which has 

not really been talked about here, but I have no quarrel with a lot 

of the comments that have been made that the grounds for extension under the new regulation are far more difficult than they have 

been in the past, and I think that is something we clearly have to 

look at as an Administration. 

It is absolutely incumbent upon us at the INS that if we are 

going to have tighter rules that we have the processing ability to 

create those extensions or exceptions that are allowed by law. That 

is clearly a high priority issue for us at the INS. 

I believe that we will get this right. If it is not right now, we will 

get it right, and the burden on the INS will be minimal in the long 

term in terms of trying to reach those goals of processing. 

I am not quite sure if that answers your question. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, it does except I think you are overly 

confident of the fact that there is going to be a tremendous amount 

of requests for extensions. There already is now. Carol has handled 

hundreds of these where people come for the very purpose of visiting the United States, and then they just want to stick around 

longer and spend their dollars. 

I have some other questions, but I want to yield to Ms. Velazquez. 

37

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, just to follow on your line of 

questioning. Mr. Commissioner, what did we do in the 1980s? Did 

we not extend to six months precisely because of what the Chairman is describing here today? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. That is correct. Well, that is what they tell me. I was 

not around in the 1980s for this job, but I am told it was because 

of the backlogs that we have. 

Now, the other side of this is that we are trying to fix our system 

so that it is much more automated so that we can handle these 

kinds of requests at a much faster pace. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to have your optimism. You know, 

if in the 1980s we extended—— Mr. ZIGLAR. In this job you have to be optimistic or you jump out 

the window. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Commissioner, if in the 1980s we went to 

six months because we could not handle the backlog, how do you 

expect now that we are going to be able to have the resources? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congresswoman, I do not believe that if this is properly fashioned that we are going to have that much of a problem 

in terms of additional I–539s being filed with us. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I wanted to ask a question. Mr. Issa, I will 

recognize you. 

Mr. Lewis, I would want to have your input on this. This is 

where I have problems. When you look at this proposed regulation, 

the whole purpose of it is aimed at fighting tourism. Tourism? Boy, 

is that Freudian. Fighting terrorism. You can tell where the heart 

of this Chairman is. That is correct. Fighting terrorism. 

I read on page 18,066 in the first paragraph it says, ‘‘Why is the 

Service proposing to reduce the maximum admission period for B– 1 and B–2 visitors from one year to six months?’’ The answer, and 

I just cannot accept this answer. The answer says: ‘‘As previously 

noted, Service regulations at . . .’’ and it gives the numbers, ‘‘. . . currently provide that a B–1 visitor for business or B–2 visitor for 

pleasure may be admitted for a period of up to one year. As the 

attacks of September 11, 2001, demonstrated, this generous period 

of stay is susceptible to abuse by aliens who seek to plan and execute acts of terrorism.’’

I do not know who wrote this, but this is saying that if you stay 

another 90 days, you are going to devise your terrorism intent after 

you get here. The article in today’s Post talked about these clowns 

on September 11th. They really started planning that stuff after 

the bombing of the embassies in Africa. 

[The information may be found in the appendix.] 

They are very sophisticated. They are very smart; so smart to the 

effect that even if the most sophisticated computers had been in effect only two of those guys would have been caught at the issuance 

of the visa stage because their backgrounds were clean. 

As I read this, somebody is going to do an act of terrorism that 

comes into the United States. He is still going to remain legal 

whether he asks for 30 days or whether he asks for six months because if he does not want to come under scrutiny he is going to 

play the game. 

I would like your comment on that and Mr. Lewis’ comment on 

that. 

38

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, I will go first. The regulation here 

goes much beyond terrorism. That reference obviously is a core reference, but the whole issue here of people coming to the United 

States under our very generous system and overstaying their stay 

or coming here and creating connections, being illegally employed 

and then overstaying, coming here and engaging in marriage fraud 

or document fraud. I mean, we have a problem that Congressman 

Issa mentioned, and that is that we have a lot of people here who 

are illegally here. 

This regulation is just one part of a lot of other things that we 

are attempting to do both at the INS and throughout the Administration not to deter people from coming here legitimately, but to 

have better eyesight on who is here and who comes, who stays and 

who leaves. 

I am not confused. I have come up to this body more times I 

think than any other Administration witness now, and it has been 

made pretty clear to me that people are not happy about the things 

that go on with respect to people coming into this country and overstaying their welcome and engaging in fraud and all of those sorts 

of things. 

This is just one of a holistic approach to trying to not deter tourists and not deter legitimate immigrants or any of that sort of 

thing, but to do things that most other countries do, and that is 

they have better eyesight on the people who are in their country 

for whatever reason they are here, whether it is tourism or whatever. It is a part of a long-term plan that it has been made clear 

to me by the Congress and particularly on the House side that that 

is what they expect, and they expect it yesterday. 

You know, if you are looking for a miracle in this area, you are 

going to have to look a whole lot higher up than where I am on 

the seventh floor of the INS, but I have to tell you. We are trying 

to do our best. You know, we do not always hit it just right on the 

nail on the head. Given the resources that we have or do not have 

and how strained we are and what we are trying to do, we are 

doing our best with what we have. 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir. Thank you. First of all, when you look at alQaeda, and I do not know that these documents have been publicly 

made available, but I know it has been stated that in the training 

manual that the al-Qaeda has there is a section on how you handle 

being interviewed for not only entry to a country, but also law enforcement stops, how you handle everyone else that might have 

cause or reason to interview. That is my concern about the interviews at the entry point once they have been given a visa. 

Secondly, you know, my heart goes out to INS. They have an 

enormous job to do. I keep going back to the screening process and 

the tracking once they are here. These individuals are trained in 

how to avoid detection. Again I go back to what this regulation will 

do, which I see many reasons for it, but it is in my mind not related to stopping terrorists. 

As far as planning goes, yes, it has been publicly stated now I 

guess in hearings yesterday that this al-Qaeda or the skyjackings 

and suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 

the planning process started in 1998 and in Germany for the most 

part. 

39

If you get into the local areas of what they might do here, yes, 

they do go out, and they look at different facilities. They photograph it, draw up schemes or schematics, and ultimately they look 

for some kind of blessing to attack that target. There could be as 

many as 30 ongoing sites that they are looking at or organizations, 

businesses, federal facilities, but they might only end up selecting 

one or two. 

I think that might be what the Commissioner, when he is talking 

about or when others are talking about what al-Qaeda does or terrorists—Hezbollah does the same thing—in a particular country. I 

hope that answers the question. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let us take two more short questions. 

We have some other responses. I am sorry. Go ahead. Ms. White? 

Ms. WHITE. Not if you are still talking on terrorism. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Hang on just a second. Let us get the mike 

in front of you so we can hear you. 

Ms. WHITE. I was not really thinking about terrorism as such at 

this time. I am sorry. Maybe my question is out of place. 

I just feel that I am not getting an answer for my people. Our 

phone lines in our offices are ringing sometimes 25, 35 times a day 

from Canadian people. I mean, a lot of these people are 50, 60, 70, 

80, and they are worried. 

All they are seeing is what has been put out on the documents 

so far, and they are worried. They are scared. This is June. They 

will be planning whether they are traveling as tourists or not. 

It is nice to say that Canadians are not part of this, but there 

is nothing that we can really tell them. There is nothing in writing. 

There is nothing that we can really tell our people. 

They are scared to go to the border. If you are scared to do something and you are 75 or 80 years old, we have to buy insurance. 

We have to buy insurance for five or six months before we go. If 

we have to plan two months before we get to the border, then get 

there and are scared that somebody is going to say no, you cannot 

go for six months. We will only let you go for four. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Ms. White, if I recall, the Commissioner 

said that this regulation does not apply to the Canadians to the extent of the extension. Is that correct, Commissioner? Did I hear 

that right? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. For Canadians, given the arrangement we have with 

them, they are not subject to the so-called I–94 process, which 

means that they come in for inspection and they have a date 

stamped on their I–94. 

In this case, they are not coming in being asked how long are you 

going to stay. It will fall back to the six month default period. After 

six months—I am sorry. The six month maximum stay period. 

After six months, if they want to stay they can file for an extension 

on the grounds that are in the regs. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. The request for the extension as to 

the Canadians would be the same as everybody else. It is only unexpected events, such as an event that occurs that is outside the 

alien’s control and prevents the alien from departing the U.S., compelling humanitarian reasons, such as emergency continuing medical treatment. 

40

The fact that a Canadian may want to stay more than six 

months just to visit more or sun more, they would be ineligible 

under this proposed language. They would need to go back home. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I share some concerns about the restrictive nature of the extension process. It is 

something that I feel like needs to be looked at very carefully. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I appreciate your candor. Thank you. 

Mr. McDermott, you had a comment? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Just a particular comment, Mr. Chairman, 

with regard to——

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you pull the mike closer to you? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. With regard to the issue that it is our opinion, 

my opinion from the perspective of the tourism industry and our 

western states group in particular, that the particular confusion 

with regard to the language having to do with fair and reasonable, 

as well as the 30 days, is where the real problem is centered 

around. 

In other words, visitors who are intending to be here for anything more than 30 days, and even those intending to be here for 

less and are not certain about what is going on, are fearful, as you 

heard Mrs. White say, that they are going to arrive at the border, 

they are going to arrive at their entry point and then be interrogated, and then some INS agent is going to determine for them 

how long they can stay regardless of how long they wish to stay, 

intend to stay or whatever. Their plans could be terrifically disrupted. 

Now, it is that kind of fear on the parts of potential travelers and 

the parts of businesses such as tour operators and travel agents 

and so forth that are planning tours for folks that has the propensity to deter the visitation that, therefore, could so severely impact 

the tourism industry in a country that, by the way, has already 

been losing international tourism market share for the past several 

years since closing down our United States Travel and Tourism Administration. We are further exacerbating our situation because of 

the lack of clarity and the problems of communication that have already permeated this particular issue. 

We need to get clarification in the language as it pertains to Canadians in particular out there post haste, and then we need to get 

clarification as to exactly what does fair and reasonable mean in 

terms of what is going to happen to a person in terms of their interrogation at a border, at an entry point, and then, furthermore, 

what exactly would constitute necessity to be defaulted to 30 days. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me make a suggestion. Mr. Commissioner, do you have it within your authority to give a simple letter 

to Ms. White that she could put up on the internet and send to all 

of her members that just states matter of fact that this regulation 

does not apply to them, and it may apply at the six month extension, but that six month extension would be a year off even thinking about it? 

Would that satisfy you, Ms. White, just something very simple? 

Ms. WHITE. It would be very good. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Is that possible? Could you work with her 

on that? 

41

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, I cannot send that letter without— I mean, I cannot go to the restroom without getting OMB’s approval, so I would have to go through them to clear the letter, but 

I certainly would try to do that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me make a suggestion. I am going to 

get very serious here. 

I would like a commitment to start those talks with a deadline 

to have that letter out in two weeks. If it is not out in two weeks, 

I may entertain a further hearing to bring you in and ask you to 

bring in your sleeping bags and your toothbrush. I am serious. We 

had to do this once before in order to effect a change for travel 

agents. 

I am not going to have our good friends in Canada, our number 

one trading partner discouraged from visiting America. I have been 

a member of the American-Canadian Inter-Parliamentary Exchange for ten years. I was the chairman for one year. The Canadians are so upset with this rule—I was just with them four weeks 

ago at our Inter-Parliamentary Exchange—that they have formed 

a task force among the Canadian MPs to figure out what they have 

done to offend the United States. That is how serious this is with 

our Canadian friends. 

I had to bring in Dr. Graham and the head of the SBA with the 

same threat. I am serious. This has to be taken care of immediately 

with the Canadians. I would ask that there be a letter that would 

be drawn and approved within two weeks or I can guarantee you 

I will take everything I can do here to compel the appearance and 

get that letter out. We cannot sacrifice hundreds of millions of billions of dollars because of bureaucratic change. 

If you need help with Dr. Graham and he will not talk to you, 

I will have both of you here at the same time, and you can discuss 

it in open court in order to get the thing done. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I did not mean to suggest that OMB is a problem. 

I just said that I—— Chairman MANZULLO. They are a problem. They move slowly. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I just said I cannot unilaterally with respect to 

something like this issue a letter. 

Chairman MANZULLO. No. I understand, but what we have here 

on the table, and, as I said before, the purpose of this Committee 

is solutions oriented. The Canadians cannot wait for the rules to 

be promulgated. 

Ms. White is here testifying. We had a member of the Canadian 

Parliament who was going to testify, but because of technicalities 

Senator Grafstein could not come. That would have been the first 

time that a Member of the Canadian Parliament would have testified before a Committee of the United States Congress on how impacted and how offended the Canadians are over this particular 

proposal. 

I would suggest, and I am going to follow up on it, that Ms. 

White have within her hands some type of a directive. I do not care 

if it is an internal memo that you send to Mike behind you that 

somehow finds its way into my hands that I can send to her that 

has your initials on it. I am serious. We have to get creative here. 

People from Canada are there. These rules do not apply to the Canadians. I just hope we got that message out. 

42

Even something that simple that finds its way into my hands 

that I can give her, that will save a lot of angst and also create 

a lot of money that could be here in the United States. 

Would that help you out? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, certainly. We will not only put it on our website. 

We will make certain that all our Canadian press gets it as well. 

[The information may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. There we are. 

Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I might suggest that I think we in the 

hearing have a clear understanding from the Commissioner, based 

on hearing testimony, that in fact Canadians do have an automatic 

six month entry. 

I might suggest that we pose that understanding in the form of 

a letter which we can, of course, make available to all the panel 

members at this time, and then subject them to permission from 

Mitch Daniels, or whoever it has to be, a response that would come 

back in a timely fashion. 

I think today we could publish something for the record in the 

form of an understanding which we send as a letter that already 

says what we believe we heard here. I think that would go a long 

way with Members of Congress clearly understanding that. To be 

honest, if it comes back incorrect, we are the body that could make 

changes necessary to make it correct. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Of course. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I do not mean to sound bureaucratic, but I also am 

a lawyer. 

Mr. ISSA. We forgive you. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I have been recovering for 22 years. The word automatic is not a right word. That is assuming. The regulations are 

this way now. That is assuming that a Canadian is otherwise admissible to the United States. 

The way it would be now is they would go to the six months. I 

just want to make that clear that we are not all of a sudden saying 

everybody from Canada, even if they are not admissible, can come 

in. 

Mr. ISSA. So the letter or the memo really should say that nothing has changed under U.S. law with regard to the Canadians? 

Chairman MANZULLO. That would be the easiest thing for the 

Canadians with the exception of that request for an extension.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Yes. Well, the six month total—in effect, that is 

right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. At least the first six months. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. You would have to explain it carefully. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The first six months. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Right. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. I mean, I would be willing to work 

with you on a one sentence thing like that, or perhaps there is 

something. 

Mr. ISSA. Our lawyers and your lawyers can get together——

Chairman MANZULLO. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. And create the letter necessary to be clear 

and concise. 

43

Mr. ZIGLAR. No, no, no. We will keep lawyers out of this so it will 

be understandable. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Then I have to get out of it. If we could 

work with your assistant, Mike, who was in our office yesterday, 

on drafting something very simple that perhaps could fly by the 

OMB that we could get, then we have your assurance that you 

would work closely with us on that? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Sure. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Do you have a question? 

Mr. ISSA. I actually have a question. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Mr. ISSA. That part was helping with yours. Now this is mine. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. You have a question and Mr. Grucci 

had a final question. Is that it? Okay. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. I think we will be quick. Sort of as a wrap up 

question, Mr. Commissioner. If I understand correctly, you are now 

very aware, at least as a result of this hearing, of the balance between the revenue that we receive and the huge amounts of taxes 

that are gleaned from tourism. And I am going to assume it is far 

greater than the amount of money necessary for you to improve 

your office in other ways that would not stifle tourism, with the 

knowledge that Congress supports you and can give you alternatives that keep that revenue coming in, thus paying for the programs of interior enforcement that you need. Hopefully that will be 

considered in your rule making in this process. 

The other one is purely a concern, and that is that I hope, and 

I hope I will get a response here today, that those other things 

which are being floated around that affect your department that 

basically say if you are Saudi, if you are this, if you are that, we 

are going to put you in a special category of high risk and, therefore, we are going to say we do not want this group of tourists or 

this group of tourists, this group of investors, this group of investors. 

I would hope that in light of what we did to Americans of Japanese descent in World War II, you would recognize that, notwithstanding our special relationship with certain countries that are 

longstanding and unrelated to anything other than large traffic and 

other relations, but with those who are generally in the pot of all 

other nations I would hope be color blind, religious blind, nationality blind, and that in all of your rule making, that would be made 

extremely clear. 

I must admit that there have been a few ideas floated, and they 

have been all over the paper, that essentially say 1.1 billion Muslims need not apply and that they will somehow be further scrutinized. Currently the Syria limitations, basically shutting them off, 

indicate a direction that way. 

I would hope I would hear today that that is an anomaly and certainly not the direction you plan on going. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congressman, as you know, I have made the statement several times, and I will expand it a little bit, that it was evil, 

not immigrants, and I will expand it to say it was evil, not immigrants and tourists, that caused September 11. 

44

As you also know, I am the resident libertarian around here, so 

I am a free trader, and I am all of those things that I always felt 

was a classic Republican, as opposed to otherwise, so I struggle 

with these kinds of things every day probably way too much for my 

own emotional health at times, but I understand where you are 

coming from, and I share that view. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. Grucci. 

Mr. GRUCCI. Thank you. Commissioner, I just want to ask a 

quick question on your intentions now with hopefully the restructuring of the INS taking place. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Which one, Congressman? 

Mr. GRUCCI. Well, hopefully it is somewhere in those 18,068 

pages. 

In all seriousness, the enforcement side of the INS. What are we 

doing at, A, the borders and, B, once someone does penetrate our 

borders? In my region on Long Island, for example, I have been 

grappling with this issue, and I might get a little parochial now if 

I may. 

For a number of years, when I was the town supervisor there I 

tried to get an INS representative to come out and discuss the 

issue with me. You know, the person chuckled on the other end of 

the phone and said you want me to come out to your town? I am 

one person, and I have this entire region. They explained the entire 

region that they have to cover. There was absolutely no way that 

one person could deal with all of that. 

Are we sending more inspectors out onto the streets? Can I get 

inspectors to come out to my District to take a look at the problem 

to see if indeed we could round up some illegal immigrants and 

send them back home? Those that are legal that belong here and 

deserve to be here, leave them alone. The situation is just boiling 

to the point where there may not be lynchings today. I cannot 

guarantee that going forward. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congressman, let me give you some statistics, some 

facts, so you will understand the dimension of the problem that we 

face. 

I currently have roughly 1,920 investigators worldwide. We are 

authorized around 2,100, as I recall. We are having a huge attrition problem throughout INS just like everybody else is primarily 

because of the Transportation Security Administration’s ability to 

pay more money, but I have 1,922. 

Roughly half of those are now still committed to working exclusively with the FBI on the terrorist investigations, so that gives me 

down to let us say roughly 1,000. I then have about 300 that are 

by prescription of the Congress dedicated to certain things like 

quick response teams and some other things, so I am down to 700 

special investigators worldwide. 

Our priorities, and obviously with terrorism we have the 1,000 

over there already. Our priorities are, number one, rounding up 

criminal aliens, and there are a lot of them out there, then breaking up smuggling rings, then doing investigations on fraud and 

other kinds of things, and then after that we get down to the enforcement, if you will, of situations like you describe where there 

is not a criminal alien or smuggling and that sort of thing. 

45

We have run out of investigators a long time before we ever got 

down to that priority. It is really a matter of resources as to where 

we can put our people at this point. I hate to poor mouth, and I 

always used to say yes, you know, I have heard that before, but 

then I look at the numbers, and I realize if I am going to meet the 

priorities.

Now, I will say this in defense of the INS. Way before I got there 

they had asked for a substantial increase in investigators, special 

agents, to do this kind of work. They have uniformly not gotten it. 

I mean, INS, by the time it gets through the process, we get, you 

know, maybe 20 percent of what we really think we need over the 

history. I have studied the history. I mean, we are up against the 

wall in terms of having resources to do the kinds of things that are 

regarded as interior enforcement. 

Mr. GRUCCI. I do appreciate your problem, but it does not help 

me with the problem that I have. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. I understand. 

Mr. GRUCCI. Out of those 700 people, if you could just send two 

my way for a couple of weeks and just let them do a sweep of the 

area, I think that that would go a long way in helping relieve a 

major problem. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Perhaps you could work out an earmark 

for the INS. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. On Long Island we have beautiful landscape. You might run into the risk of not knowing who is going to 

cut your lawn or wash the dishes in the restaurant. 

Mr. GRUCCI. Reclaiming my time, I will tell you who cuts my 

lawn, and it is not an illegal immigrant. I can assure you of that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It was a joke. Mr. Commissioner, before we adjourn I just would like to know. I know that you said to me when 

I asked you in terms of addressing the serious concerns about the 

economic impact that the proposed regulation is going to have on 

the tourism industry you said that whatever it takes, and I took 

that as a way to say to us that you are committed yourself to convene a meeting with those representatives and your office. What 

would be the time frame for such a meeting? 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, soon. I do not have my schedule in front of me, 

but I would suggest that we can do that in the next week or two. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. If you can inform this Committee, I would 

ask, you know, that he submit to us a report of such an effort. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I just want to thank all the witnesses here 

for a really good hearing. As I said at the beginning of our hearing 

here in Small Business, the reason we have one panel is to have 

interaction among the people who propose the regulations and 

those who are impacted by it. 

Commissioner Ziglar, you have done a marvelous job, an exemplary job, of defending a very difficult regulation; not that I accept 

all of your answers on it, but they are given with a good heart, 

with a good spirit, with an honest mind, with a person who has a 

sincere desire to serve this country, from a person who has obvious 

integrity and a person who, in my opinion, is probably the best person for the job under these very difficult circumstances. 

You have a full understanding of the business impact on this. 

You have a compassion for people. You have the right attitude. You 

46

took a job that is very difficult, coming into it knowing you would 

have to appear before Congressional Committees. 

I just want to commend you for your statesmanship and the way 

you have answered these questions and for your candor and for 

your dedication to public service. 

As to the rest of the members of the panel, I think you share 

with me the insights that we have learned about the every day life 

of a commissioner and also his openness and willingness to work 

with the business community, especially with the tourism industry. 

I also appreciate the long range view as to what INS needs to 

do. I am glad that we provided a forum for you. I wish that CSPAN were here because that message has to get out. 

I trust that within the next week or so that we can work together 

very diligently to quell as much misinformation as possible and to 

work towards a very quick amelioration of the misinformation so 

that the tourists can come to our country and spend lots and lots 

of money. 

This Committee is adjourned. 

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

47


Insert offset folio 045 81127A.001
48


Insert offset folio 046 81127A.002
49


Insert offset folio 047 81127A.003
50


Insert offset folio 048 81127A.004
51


Insert offset folio 049 81127A.005
52


Insert offset folio 050 81127A.006
53


Insert offset folio 051 81127A.007
54


Insert offset folio 052 81127A.008
55


Insert offset folio 053 81127A.009
56


Insert offset folio 054 81127A.010
57


Insert offset folio 055 81127A.011
58


Insert offset folio 056 81127A.012
59


Insert offset folio 057 81127A.013
60


Insert offset folio 058 81127A.014
61


Insert offset folio 059 81127A.015
62


Insert offset folio 060 81127A.016
63


Insert offset folio 061 81127A.017
64


Insert offset folio 062 81127A.018
65


Insert offset folio 063 81127A.019
66


Insert offset folio 064 81127A.020
67


Insert offset folio 065 81127A.021
68


Insert offset folio 066 81127A.022
69


Insert offset folio 067 81127A.023
70


Insert offset folio 068 81127A.024
71


Insert offset folio 069 81127A.025
72


Insert offset folio 070 81127A.026
73


Insert offset folio 071 81127A.027
74


Insert offset folio 072 81127A.028
75


Insert offset folio 073 81127A.029
76


Insert offset folio 074 81127A.030
77


Insert offset folio 075 81127A.031
78


Insert offset folio 076 81127A.032
79


Insert offset folio 077 81127A.033
80


Insert offset folio 078 81127A.034
81


Insert offset folio 079 81127A.035
82


Insert offset folio 080 81127A.036
83


Insert offset folio 081 81127A.037
84


Insert offset folio 082 81127A.038
85


Insert offset folio 083 81127A.039
86


Insert offset folio 084 81127A.040
87


Insert offset folio 085 81127A.041
88


Insert offset folio 086 81127A.042
89


Insert offset folio 087 81127A.043
90


Insert offset folio 088 81127A.044
91


Insert offset folio 089 81127A.045
92


Insert offset folio 090 81127A.046
93


Insert offset folio 091 81127A.047
94


Insert offset folio 092 81127A.048
95


Insert offset folio 093 81127A.049
96


Insert offset folio 094 81127A.050
97


Insert offset folio 095 81127A.051
98


Insert offset folio 096 81127A.052
99


Insert offset folio 097 81127A.053
100


Insert offset folio 098 81127A.054
101


Insert offset folio 099 81127A.055
102


Insert offset folio 100 81127A.056
103


Insert offset folio 124 81127A.080
104


Insert offset folio 125 81127A.081
105


Insert offset folio 126 81127A.082
106


Insert offset folio 127 81127A.083
107


Insert offset folio 128 81127A.084
108


Insert offset folio 129 81127A.085
109


Insert offset folio 101 81127A.057
110


Insert offset folio 102 81127A.058
111


Insert offset folio 103 81127A.059
112


Insert offset folio 104 81127A.060
113


Insert offset folio 105 81127A.061
114


Insert offset folio 130 81127A.086
115


Insert offset folio 131 81127A.087
116


Insert offset folio 132 81127A.088
117


Insert offset folio 133/200 81127A.089
118


Insert offset folio 108 81127A.064
119


Insert offset folio 109 81127A.065
120


Insert offset folio 110 81127A.066
121


Insert offset folio 111 81127A.067
122


Insert offset folio 112 81127A.068
123


Insert offset folio 113 81127A.069
124


Insert offset folio 114 81127A.070
125


Insert offset folio 115 81127A.071
126


Insert offset folio 116 81127A.072
127


Insert offset folio 117 81127A.073
128


Insert offset folio 118 81127A.074
129


Insert offset folio 119 81127A.075
130


Insert offset folio 120 81127A.076
131


Insert offset folio 121 81127A.077
132


Insert offset folio 122 81127A.078
133


Insert offset folio 123 81127A.079