S. HRG. 110–630 

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–83 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

45–594 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–630 

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–83 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 319 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, prepared statement . 322 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 324 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 3 

WITNESS 

Chertoff, Michael, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 6 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Michael Chertoff to questions submitted by Senators Grassley, 

Leahy, Feinstein, Specter, Schumer, Kennedy, Hatch, Biden, Durbin and 

Feingold ................................................................................................................ 48 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Director, and Joanne 

Lin, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Office, Washington, D.C., statement 

and attachments ................................................................................................... 266 

Cason, James E., Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... 293 

Chertoff, Michael, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, 

D.C., statement .................................................................................................... 295 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, letter ..... 315 

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

Jon Kyl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, and Hon. Jeff Sessions, 

a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, joint letter .................................... 317 

Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Governor, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, letter .. 326 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania: 

February 15, 2008, letter to Secretary Chertoff ............................................. 328 

February 15, 2008, letter to Attorney General Mukasey .............................. 330 

February 28, 2008, letter to Secretary Chertoff ............................................. 332 

March 4, 2008, letter to His Excellency Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, 

President of the Arab Republic of Egypt ..................................................... 334 

Tohono O’odham Nation, Hon. Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman, Washington, D.C., 

statement .............................................................................................................. 336 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Whitehouse, Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, and 

Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. First off, I thank those who are here. I know 

it is a very busy time, and Senator Specter, who is on a whole lot 

of committees, is going to have to be leaving for another Committee. And I know people come in and out. I am glad you are here, 

and I thank Secretary Chertoff for being here. And it is an important part of our oversight responsibilities having him here. 

As I noted recently with respect to the publication of rules governing passport and entry requirements, I am worried about the 

Department’s record in how it has handled the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the REAL ID Act, naturalization backlogs, 

the resettlement of Iraqi refugees and asylum seekers, and the 

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. 

Recently, President Bush used the fifth anniversary of the Department to speak about spreading freedom and liberty around the 

world, as he did, and I had applauded him at the time during his 

second inaugural address. But, accordingly, in order to protect the 

freedom and liberties of Americans, we have to adhere to the rule 

of law and honor America’s commitment to basic human rights. 

The first Secretary of the Department, Thomas Ridge, has acknowledged that waterboarding is torture. This administration will 

not even share with this oversight Committee its legal justifications for waterboarding and why the administration supports 

waterboarding and other practices that we would condemn if they 

were used against an American anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, we have sadly gone from the world’s human rights leader; 

now we find ourselves being lectured on human rights by the Pakistani and Chinese Governments. I mean, that puts us in a pretty 

bad position. 

2 

Sixty-six people have died since 2004 while in the Department of 

Homeland Security’s custody, some for lack of medical care or from 

outright neglect. Now, we have told, and rightly so, other countries 

to be careful how they are holding people. I do not know how we 

can say we are adhering to our standards when we lose 66 people 

in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security alone. 

Imagine the outrage if an American citizen were held in immigration detention in another country and then he or she died for 

lack of basic medical care. When it takes a lawsuit to improve substandard detention conditions for children and families at an immigration detention facility in Texas, the U.S. Government is failing 

its basic commitments to human rights and the rule of law—again, 

things for which we would criticize other countries if they did. 

Now, I recognize that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

branch has worked with nongovernmental organizations to make 

improvements in family detention standards and detention standards for asylum seekers who are fleeing to America to escape persecution in other parts of the world. But as the Department increased 

its enforcement activities, I wish it had planned better. 

We have also seen that the administration has failed to live up 

to its promises to resettle Iraqis who have helped the United States 

in their home country. This problem is compounded by the Department’s inability to use the authority that Congress has given it to 

address the terrible effects of the material support bar and the related, overly broad definitions of ‘‘terrorist organizations.’’ 

The recent case of Saman Kareem Ahmad, now a language instructor for the U.S. Marines who has received commendations 

from General Petraeus for his service in Iraq, exemplifies these 

problems. He was granted a special visa to come to the United 

States, but then, even though he has commendations from General 

Petraeus, even though he works as a language instructor for the 

U.S. Marines, his green card application was denied by your Department, which said that the pro-American, anti-Saddam Hussein 

group, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, with which Mr. Ahmad 

served, was a terrorist organization. He is caught in an ‘‘Alice in 

Wonderland’’ trap that could very easily be solved if DHS wanted 

to. 

Now, here at home, of course, you are well aware of my concerns 

about the Department’s implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Department must now make good use 

of the time Congress has given to make sure that the implementation goes smoothly and to minimize disruption in Americans’ lives 

and in our relations with our good neighbors to the north and 

south. 

I also share the view of many on both sides of the aisle and 

across the country about the so-called REAL ID Act and its unfunded mandates for the States. If we are going to have a national 

ID card, we ought to at least make sure that somebody is paying 

for it, and not the States. 

Now, I agree that there are benefits to be gained by encouraging 

the States to make improvements in the identification that they 

issue. Everybody wants that. I do not believe that somebody at the 

border ought to be able to check several thousand different kinds 

of identification. But I share the view that far greater cooperation 

3 

would have been gained by partnering with the States, rather than 

imposing a costly unfunded Federal mandate. Bullying the States 

is not the answer, nor threatening their citizens’ rights to travel. 

And from Maine to Montana, States have said no. 

A Republican Congress rejected efforts toward comprehensive immigration reform and adopted the Secure Fence Act. My recollection is that their bill entrusted you with the power to ‘‘take all actions’’ you determine necessary and appropriate to achieve and 

maintain operational control over our borders. The Department’s 

virtual fence pilot program, which was apparently designed without 

adequate consultation with the Border Patrol, simply does not 

work. The administration can spend hundreds of millions of dollars 

on things that sound great on paper, but if they do not work, we 

gain nothing. 

In fact, your Department has begun condemning the property of 

private citizens in Texas and Arizona who would prefer that you 

not construct a border wall on their property. And just yesterday, 

you announced that the Department has waived all environmental 

laws in areas across 470 miles of border lands. 

I wonder if you will speak out for sensible enforcement policies 

or defend the billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money being wasted 

in what seems to be a mean-spirited, costly effort, especially the 

landowners, some who say it is Big Government coming in and saying, ‘‘You are going to do it our way, and you have got nothing to 

say about it.’’ The border fence and the related actions scar not 

only our landscape but our legacy as a Nation of immigrants. 

Another example, of course, has resulted in the backlogs at the 

Citizenship and Immigration Services branch. You have told Congress that higher fees would bring faster and better services, and 

you now preside over citizenship application backlogs that could 

and should have been anticipated. These are applications from 

legal permanent residents and people who have followed the rules, 

but because there was incompetent Government planning, they 

cannot get through. 

I appreciate the recent efforts of Director Gonzalez and his hardworking staff, but I will be looking forward to see—you are the one 

in charge—if you are going to deal aggressively with this issue. 

What commitment to the Senate and the American people can you 

make? Can you assure those who applied for U.S. citizenship before 

March 31, 2008, that they are actually going to be able to get that 

citizenship in time to vote in this next election? Or is it going to 

be, as many have suggested, that there is an effort made to make 

sure they do not vote in the next election? 

Now, we want security. But we want a Federal Government that 

works and which respects the principles of federalism and the basic 

human rights and civil liberties that we all hold dear. 

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

Senator Specter? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4 

Mr. Secretary, I begin by thanking you for your service and taking on this Department, one of the toughest in the Federal Government. You have a very distinguished record as U.S. Attorney, Assistant Attorney General, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, stepping 

over into this position, with a lot of problems, inevitable criticism, 

and I think you are doing a really outstanding job. 

I want to focus on a problem which I think is enormously serious, 

which has been significantly ignored under the radar, and that is 

the issue of illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes who 

remain on the streets of America committing more crimes because 

we cannot deport them because their country of origin will not take 

them back. 

The statistics are alarming. Estimated by your Department, between 300,000 and 450,000 removable criminal aliens are in Federal, State, or local custody. They are an enormous cost, but more 

importantly, they are a gigantic public safety problem, because 

after they have served their sentences and been ordered removed, 

the immigration officials can only detain them for 180 days unless 

there is a significant prospect of deportation. But if none, they are 

released onto the streets of America. 

In the past several months, I have visited a number of prisons 

in Pennsylvania: the State Institution at Camp Hill, outside Harrisburg; Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County; Luzerne County in the 

northeastern part of the State; Chester and suburban Philadelphia. 

And it has been a real eye opener on the issue of public safety and 

on the issue of cost. 

In Chester County, illustratively, it costs county officials $1,700,000 a year, and they are only compensated by the Federal 

Government, a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But the cost 

factor pales into insignificance on those who have been released 

back to the streets with the statistics showing they are recidivists, 

six, seven, eight repeat crimes on the average. 

There are a couple of things that can be done. You have the discretionary authority now to institute procedures so that the State 

Department will not grant visas to countries which do not accept 

back their criminals. I have introduced legislation which would 

make that mandatory. 

With all respect, I do not think there has been diligence by your 

Department in pursuing that option, but my legislation would 

make it mandatory. If another country wants to have visas and let 

their citizens come to the United States, let them take back their 

convicts. If they do not, we ought to deny them visas. The statistics 

show that there are an enormous number of individuals who are 

being kept here because their home countries will not take them 

back. 

I have also covered in my legislative initiative a proposal to restrict or cutoff foreign aid to countries. Egypt, for example, will not 

take back an inmate who has to be force-fed in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, at a cost estimated by prison officials at $250,000 last year. 

And I have written to President Mubarak of Egypt about that and 

would ask consent for a copy of that to be included in the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, we have found that a Department of Justice survey last year showed that 40 percent of prisons 

5 

surveyed did not even ask inmates about their immigration status. 

Now, the issue of sanctuary, some sanctuary cities, has significance 

when you are talking about not asking a witness to a crime what 

their immigration status is because you do not want to discourage 

witnesses from coming forward to report crimes. So there is a justification, at least arguably, for that distinction. But there is no 

reason why there should not be a mandate for inmates in jail to 

be asked about their immigration status so that deportation can be 

initiated. 

In my visit to the Philadelphia correctional institution, I talked 

to a group of inmates, 66 in number, all outfitted in their green 

jackets. I started to explore with them their willingness on minor 

offenses to waive the complexities of return under the immigration 

laws, and a number of them said they would be willing to do so. 

The Federal laws authorize voluntary return to be considered in 

plea bargains, and I would ask you to take a look at what has been 

done at the Federal level. 

And your officials were with me, very cooperative, very helpful, 

but they had not explored that in the county prisons. But if someone is charged with a minor offense, it has to be up to the DA to 

make the decision not to prosecute in the court. But if they will return voluntarily, let’s get them out of the jails where they are very, 

very expensive. 

With respect to those who are released, I discussed with you informally a few moments ago the possibility of detaining them even 

after their sentences are concluded where there is evidence of their 

being violent criminals. It could be analogized to the Sexual Predators Act. But we ought to be exploring ways, even after sentences 

are concluded, where there is a real risk in returning them to the 

streets to figure out what might be done. And I would ask you now 

for the record what we discussed informally to have you seek an 

opinion from the Department of Justice as to what might be done. 

My red light is about to go on, and I want to raise one other subject with you, and that is the status of having workers in the 

United States to help on vital agricultural matters and other lines 

of work. There is a major story in the New York Times today about 

tomato growers in northeastern Pennsylvania who have given up 

on their crops, and I have heard that in other parts of my State 

and heard about it in other parts of the country. 

So that I do think the guest worker program and the availability 

of labor where we can regulate people coming in and going back is 

something that requires some immediate attention, as we need 

some immediate attention on the visa issues with the need for 

many skilled people—professionals, doctors, PhDs—who are willing 

to come to this country to perform vital services, and the visa 

quotas ought to be substantially expanded. There have been letters 

signed by many Members of the Senate on that subject. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask consent that my letters to Mr. 

Chertoff of February 15th and February 28th be included in the 

record with my request for a response as promptly as the Secretary 

can manage it. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Without objection, they will be. 

Mr. Secretary, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you 

solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this matter will 

6 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Specter, members of the Committee. It is good to see you. 

I look forward to dealing with the issues you have raised—not all 

in my opening statement. I have got a fuller statement which I request be accepted as part of the record of the hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears as a submission for the record.] 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I was reminded, as I walked into the building this morning, that a year ago I was spending quite a bit of time 

up here, including quite a bit of time with members of this Committee, as we tried to wrestle with issues of immigration. And although I think we made some progress, we were not able to take 

the ball over the goal line, although I am confident that in the fullness of time, it actually will get over the goal line. 

But we do need to make a deposit for the American people on 

the issue of credibility on enforcement, and I hope that as we do 

that, we can continue to look at the broader picture with respect 

to immigration reform so that we can reconcile our desire for security, the economic needs that Senator Specter alluded to in discussing some of the problem that our agricultural workers are having, and also to have a system that is humane but that respects 

the rule of law, which I think the American people care deeply 

about. 

We are continuing to move forward using the existing laws with 

respect to security, and we have also put into place some measures 

which I am hoping will at least make the existing temporary worker programs a little bit more user friendly, and I am happy to get 

into those. 

To give just a brief oral summary of where we are, let me begin 

with the border itself. We currently have approximately 310 miles 

of border fencing constructed. That is about 170 miles of pedestrian 

fencing and 140 miles of vehicle fencing. We are on track to reach 

our goal of 670 miles combined by the end of this calendar year. 

That would be 370 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of vehicle fence, depending upon what is appropriate at a particular location on the border. 

In fiscal year 2005, we had 11,264 Border Patrol. Currently, we 

have 15,852 Border Patrol. That is an increase of 4,500, you know, 

in less than 3 years, which I think is a very dramatic increase and 

one which I am happy to say has not been at the cost of quality. 

We had a group of former Border Patrol agents come in and look 

at our training program, and they have indicated it is as good as 

or better than it has ever been in the past. So we are on track to 

hit our goal at the end of this year of over 18,000 Border Patrol. 

With respect to technology—and, again, I am happy to get into 

this with more detail—we have actually made enormous progress 

with technology. The P–28 prototype, which we deployed in 28 

7 

miles of Tucson Sector, contrary to some of the news articles, did 

actually work and does work. It is currently operational. It has led 

to the apprehension of over 2,500 illegal aliens. We need to take 

it to what I call 2.0 to make it more optimal, but it works, and it 

was made to work within the original budget. In fact, it wound up 

costing us a little bit less money than we budgeted for it because 

we got a credit on a couple of items that we ultimately decided 

were not performing and we did not need. 

But in addition to that, I want to emphasize what else we are 

doing with technology. We have four unmanned aerial vehicles. We 

will have by the end of this year 40—that is, 4–0—mobile radar 

systems called ‘‘mobile surveillance systems’’ deployed all across 

the border. We have 7,500 ground sensors, and we will have another 2,500 this fiscal year, including 1,500 for the Northern border, so that the virtual fencing element of this is, in fact, progressing and it is, in fact, producing real value. 

At the ports of entry, as you said, Mr. Chairman, we have the 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative now due to come into effect 

in June of 2009. We have in the meantime narrowed the number 

of documents that will be accepted at the border from 8,000 to 

about 20 in order to eliminate the problem of people coming in literally with documents that are not worth the paper they are printed on. 

We have also eliminated oral declarations at the border, and one 

example of how this works occurred 2 weeks ago in Buffalo when 

an individual presented a Colorado driver’s license, tried to make 

an oral claim of U.S. citizenship, was put into secondary because 

he did not have proof of citizenship; and ultimately, after we did 

a fingerprint search, we discovered he was not an American citizen. 

He had previously been removed from the country, and he had 

been denied entry in Mexico. This is exactly what we wanted to do, 

to catch this kind of individual, and literally every week, maybe as 

much as every day, we are catching people using this type of procedure at the ports of entry. 

Now, the good news on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

is the following: Currently, we have deployed at every port of entry 

a machine that will read the documents that will be required in 

June 2009. Those are currently deployed. We have the ability right 

now to read passports at the border using the machine-readable 

zone at all of our land ports of entry, as well as, of course, at our 

airports and seaports. 

There will also be an alternative reading device which will be 

able to read the RFID chip, which will actually speed up the flow 

across the border and answer one of the persistent complaints we 

get about long lines. We have awarded the contract for the readers. 

We will begin deploying the readers this summer. By next spring 

we will have readers for the RFID fully deployed and operational 

at the top 39 ports in the country, covering approximately 95 percent of the traffic. So we will be well underway to have this fully 

implemented in advance of June 2009. 

In addition, besides the passports themselves, besides the Pass 

Card, which the State Department is going to be issuing this 

spring, we have negotiated with a number of States to improve enhanced drivers’ licenses that will also meet the requirements of the 

8 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The State of Washington is 

already issuing the licenses; 6,500 have been issued, and about 

18,000 people queued up in order to be interviewed to get the licenses. New York is working on its business plan to do it. Vermont 

is working on its business plan to do it. Michigan has just approved 

legislation to do it. And Arizona is working on it. And although we 

are not making States do this, it is certainly a convenience and an 

expense saver for the citizens, and we are encouraging more States 

to do this. 

On interior enforcement, we have see dramatic increases across 

the board in our capability and our results. Deportations, we went 

up from 2004 where there were 173,000 to last year where there 

were 283,000. Fugitive arrests went up from 6,500 in 2004 to 

30,000 last year. Work-site criminal arrests went up dramatically. 

Work-site administrative arrests went up dramatically, and removal of criminal aliens also doubled—more than doubled between 

2004 and 2007. So we are making progress in these areas as well. 

E-Verify, our system for employers to verify that their workers 

are, in fact, using legitimate Social Security numbers that match 

the names. We have been getting 1,000 employers joining every 

week. We now have over 58,000 employers participating in the program. Ninety-three percent of employees who submit to the process 

are instantly verified and approved. Seven percent are not. But 

when you look at what happens with the 7 percent, the vast majority of those never contest the fact that they do not have a legitimate number. They simply leave. We have 1 percent contesting, 

and those, of course, get resolved and people can be hired. This program works. It does, however, need to be reauthorized at the end 

of this year, and we are going to be asking Congress to do that. 

Our temporary worker program, we are looking forward to a 

streamlined H–2A program. I am well aware of the fact that our 

H–2B program needs to be—the cap needs to be extended, and we 

are working with Congress in order to do that. 

Finally, I know I will get into many of these issues in questions, 

but let me address two things that you raised, Mr. Chairman. 

First, with respect to Mr. Ahmad, the translator, I waived the objection to his getting a green card yesterday, so that—we are out 

of ‘‘Alice in Wonderland,’’ and he is now on track to getting a green 

card. 

And, finally, we have stepped up the tempo of our naturalization 

of people who apply for green cards. Our target this year will be 

over a million. This will be the largest number of people that have 

been naturalized, as far as I know, in history—certainly more than 

in the past 2 years—and we are doing it without compromising the 

vetting process to make sure that we do not have a repeat of the 

debacle in 1996 with the Citizenship USA program. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and thank you for what you 

said about Mr. Ahmad. You know, it is interesting this happened 

the day before the hearing and after a major review in the Washington Post. The man lost his entire family in the chemical gas attacks unleashed by Saddam Hussein in Kurdistan in 1988, 20 

9 

years ago, and instructing U.S. Marines in Arabic language and 

culture at Quantico, General Petraeus, as I said, commended him. 

Why did it take so long? I mean, is each one of these cases going 

to require a major story in the Washington Post or other major 

newspaper and a congressional hearing before they get resolved? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, as you know, until last 

year, when I think as part of the omnibus bill, when we were given 

the flexibility with respect to—broader flexibility with respect to 

these organizations to waive the material support provision, until 

then we were bound by law with respect to these cases. 

After the new legislation was enacted, instruction and guidance 

went out, and we are now freezing action on all the people who 

might be eligible for a waiver who are similarly situated so that we 

can review and make the individualized determinations. 

Chairman LEAHY. Is it coincidence that his was granted yesterday, the day before this hearing? Is that just coincidence? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think what happened—no. It is not the 

hearing that did it. When I saw the piece in the paper, I raised the 

question about why this was not included in the hold order that 

had gone out, and apparently, the hold order went out after the rejection of this particular individual had occurred. So I asked that 

we go back retroactively and make sure we were not losing people 

because of an artifact of time. 

Chairman LEAHY. OK. So we had the newspaper article, went 

back and did it. I would think that would ring some bells in your 

Department that maybe if reporters can find out where something 

has not been done right and find out that easily, why can’t we? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And they have done that. They have gone 

back now, and we have frozen the people who are eligible, and we 

will make the appropriate individualized determination. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, the other thing I mentioned earlier, the 

backlog of the citizenship applications at USCIS, it has been widely 

reported, it is well known. When you asked for a fee increase, 

which we granted, the reason for giving that, for the Congress to 

allow for that increase in fee or tax or whatever you want to call 

it, you promised an average processing time of 5 months. Now we 

are told it is going to be 14 to 15 months. And we gave you extra 

money to get a 5-month return. 

Now we get 14 to 15 months. And thousands, and maybe tens of 

thousands—some say hundreds of thousands—who applied in time 

so that they might be able to vote and participate as citizens—you 

can see where this is going. A lot of people are wondering whether—they have followed the rules. They have done everything that 

they have been told in this great country they want to be in so they 

can vote and everything else. But even though we are going to 

charge more and all that, sorry, we cannot get around to this until 

after this Presidential election, the first one in years—decades, 

really—where you have no incumbent running. 

Can you say that those who followed the rules, that have a naturalization application that was filed by March 31st, just 2 days ago, 

those applicants will be processed and qualified to vote, qualified 

to be naturalized as citizens in time to register to vote before the 

November elections? 

10 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me tell you what I can say. First of all, 

just to give you an idea of— 

Chairman LEAHY. Is that answer a no, you cannot— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think I can tell you there is a particular date, partly because I cannot tell you whether any particular individual will have a problem in the background check. 

They may not qualify, or there may be a— 

Chairman LEAHY. Assuming you have a qualified person. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can tell you that we have reduced the 

wait time. I can tell you we will—a record number of people will 

qualify. It will be over million, is our current estimation, which is 

far more than in any prior year. But what I cannot— 

Chairman LEAHY. You are also charging far more than you ever 

did in any previous year in history. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And the money is going to hire additional 

adjudicators and people to do the work that has to be done. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, how many of the individuals who did 

apply before March 31st will not be naturalized by September 

30th? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I cannot—I don’t—the statistics I have 

don’t fit within that categorization. I have them a completely different way. 

Chairman LEAHY. Would it be thousands? Tens of thousands? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I cannot—I don’t want to guess. Let me tell 

you— 

Chairman LEAHY. Can you get us the answer? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Pardon? 

Chairman LEAHY. Can you get us the answer? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It may be difficult to give you anything 

other than a rough estimate, but I can give you some information 

which I do have with me. 

Chairman LEAHY. Even a rough estimate, can you give us that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can tell you that we will have—we are 

targeted, we expect to have over a million naturalized by the end 

of this fiscal year. That will be about 30 percent more than we did 

the prior year and 30 percent more than we did the year before 

that. So it will be a record number that are naturalized. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, with the record high price that they are 

paying and the record high price which was put in at your request 

so they could get them through, it still appears—and feel free to 

go back and tell me if I am wrong on this—that tens of thousands, 

maybe even more, are going to be precluded from a chance to vote 

in the Presidential election. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There may be a significant number that do 

not—that have applied as of this date that do not make it through. 

I mean, we are talking about 6 months. I do not think under the 

best of circumstances we ever guaranteed that we could process 

people in 6 months, even before the surge. And, of course, the surge 

in applications, the doubling in applications, created a lot more 

stress on— 

Chairman LEAHY. Try to give us some numbers, because I don’t 

mean to be cynical, but I am concerned that some of them are not 

going to be able to vote because—well, they will get through some 

very quickly after the Presidential election, not before. 

11 

Let me ask you, you— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I just—I would not like to let that linger in 

the air. We are going to be able to naturalize in record numbers, 

which I think is a powerful demonstration of good faith. At the 

same time, I do have to also recognize that 10 years ago there was 

a blistering IG report relating to the 1996 naturalizations which 

were riddled with fraud and misconduct. We are not going to repeat that either. So we are going to be secure and we are going 

to— 

Chairman LEAHY. My time is nearly up, but I want to ask you, 

on REAL ID, the unfunded mandate put on the States, why not repeal that and return to negotiated rulemaking with the States? I 

hear on the one hand the great speeches from Members of Congress of both parties that we just do not like these unfunded mandates on the States, but here is a huge, huge one; some say it can 

go into the billions of dollars. We still have the question of whether 

your computers that you have talked about that are going to be in 

place can even talk to the State’s computers, which will also be 

there, which has been a huge financial problem trying to work out. 

Why not just negotiate this for the States instead of saying, here, 

Big Daddy in Washington knows a lot better than you and here is 

what it is going to be? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, as I know you 

know, this was not my decision. This was a congressional decision. 

Chairman LEAHY. No, but that is why I am saying, why not just 

have the Congress repeal it and go to a negotiated—would you like 

that better? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would say that we have actually, in effect, 

done the negotiation. We have spent an enormous amount of time 

negotiating with the States. As a consequence of that, we have reduced the cost by three-quarters. It is now— 

Chairman LEAHY. The States still have to pay it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is right. The States still have to pay 

it— 

Chairman LEAHY. It is still an unfunded mandate. 

Secretary CHERTOFF.—although we do have some grant money 

available. 

Now, we are estimating it is about $8 a license. I am quite sure 

that I could predict with confidence that the States will come back 

to the Federal Government and maybe ask for more money, and 

that will be an issue to be dealt with in the appropriations process. 

Chairman LEAHY. Yes, but there is nothing in the President’s 

budget for it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There is some money in the President’s— 

Chairman LEAHY. $80 million, which would not even begin to 

touch this. We are talking about billions of dollars. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There is some money in the President’s 

budget for this. Also, given the fact that it is about $8 a license, 

it is obviously also a subject to be recaptured through fees. Certainly that reflects only a fraction of what I pay when I renew my 

license. 

So I understand there is always a financial issue here, and I respect the fact that there is disagreement about it. But I do want 

to say we have done a lot of negotiation with the States to address 

12 

their concerns, and I think we are so far along the road to getting 

this done that I think we are better served, you know, continuing 

to address the outstanding issues, but moving forward with speed. 

Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention 

one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: 

I believe—and we have had some question in this Committee to 

have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was 

born in the Panama Canal Zone, that he meets the constitutional 

requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never 

had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the 

agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any 

doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any 

doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become 

President? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is 

that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen. 

Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you. 

Senator Specter? 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, do you know to what extent existing law is being 

implemented which authorizes on notice by you to the Secretary of 

State that visas will be denied to citizens of nations which refuse 

to accept repatriation of these convicted illegal aliens? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know we have used it on a couple of occasions, and it— 

Senator SPECTER. A couple of occasions? Would you take a look 

at that procedure and see if it can be implemented to put some 

muscle into the requirement that these nations take back their— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. How about the legislation which I have introduced which would make it mandatory? Would you object to that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that, you know, there are probably 

foreign policy issues that suggest that a mandatory rule might be 

a little bit— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let’s examine those foreign policy issues. 

Why? Why shouldn’t—when we have somebody who has been convicted of a crime, many crimes of violence, and they are on the 

streets of the United States, the most Immigration can hold them 

is 180 days, and they are back on the streets, they have a very 

high recidivism rate, an average of six to eight repeat crimes, what 

foreign policy considerations override the public safety? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I mean, I agree with you. I think that countries ought to take their people back. And I should say most countries do, so it is not a widespread problem. There are some that do 

not. 

I always say that an automatic rule that says if you do not take 

somebody back you lose your visas might be regarded by the President as a— 

Senator SPECTER. OK, we will withhold on an automatic rule and 

give you a chance to use it on a discretionary basis. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But I do think—and we have used— 

13 

Senator SPECTER. Would you report back to this Committee in 3 

months and tell us how well you are using the existing authority 

you have to, in effect, compel countries to take back these convicts 

on pain of not having visas issued? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. How about the point of denying foreign aid to 

countries which do not take back their convicts? I know there, 

again, you have foreign policy considerations, and these are delicate matters. But how do we get some teeth in the approach that 

these countries ought to take back these criminals? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that actually the visa has proven in 

the past to be pretty effective leverage. I can think of a couple of 

instances where it did break a logjam. I do need to make one point 

clear, though. There are some times—there are two problems that 

arise when we try to send people back. One is if the country does 

not want to take them back, but the second problem that arises is 

sometimes the individual will claim that if we send them back, 

they are going to be tortured, and then we have a treaty problem. 

And some of the worst instances of people that we have essentially 

been stuck with are people that we cannot send back because our 

own courts say if you send them back, they may be tortured and, 

therefore— 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, I accept that as a limitation if 

there is an inquiry made and real factual justification. There are, 

however, some in that category who ought to be sent back at least 

under an exception which is possible to the international covenant. 

Legislation implementing Article 3 of the U.N. Convention Against 

Torture says that there can be an exception to that if a regulation 

is adopted that the aliens are security risks, such as terrorists or 

those who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. They 

are not entitled to that protection. But that cannot be done under 

international law unless a regulation is adopted by your Department. Canada has such a regulation. Canada has a good record on 

human rights. But your Department has not adopted that regulation. 

Would you take a look at that— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator SPECTER.—and report back within 3 months whether 

you have adopted it? Because at least that exception, I think, ought 

to be utilized. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with that. Yes, we will definitely 

look at that. 

Senator SPECTER. Moving now to the question of detention of 

these dangerous people, going back to the proposition that once 

somebody has served their sentence and been ordered removed, Immigration can detain them for only 180 days unless there is a significant prospect of repatriation in the reasonably forseesable future, and if not, they have to be released, what could be done to 

detain these individuals by analogy to the predatory sexual offender? You and I have discussed and I mentioned in my opening 

statement that you will seek an opinion from the Department of 

Justice as to what we could legislate on there. But what is your 

thinking? First of all, do you believe that we ought to be searching 

14 

for some way to detain these violent criminals longer as opposed 

to putting them back on the streets as a matter of public safety? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I fully agree with that. It has been very 

frustrating when we have occasions where someone serves their 

sentence, we want to ship them out, that we cannot ship them out 

because either they have a legal basis to block it under the Convention or the country will not take them back, and then we cannot 

hold them. So I think at a minimum we should be abe to hold 

them, and I do believe actually this is something where a legislative cure is appropriate. 

Senator SPECTER. Let me move to a final point—I have about a 

minute left—and that is on the issue of voluntary departure. I was 

struck when I visited the Philadelphia jails and talked to quite a 

number of men who were there that they would be glad to go back 

voluntarily if the charges were dropped. And this is a matter that 

has to be evaluated by the prosecuting attorney who has the discretion in the local courts. But if there is a minor offense—your officials were not pursuing that line. So would you undertake to look 

at that situation with a view to—first of all, do you think your immigration officials ought to be encouraged to identify people who 

are held in custody on minor charges to explore the possibility of 

voluntarily leaving the country, going back to their native country 

without all the delays which they can interpose? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me say something. Not only do I 

agree, but we actually have done this with a number of States. We 

have at least with New York an arrangement where for non-violent 

criminals, they can actually get a reduction in their sentence if 

they will go back voluntarily. And the flip side of that is then they 

are under a restriction that if we should catch them sneaking back 

in, not only do they get punished for violating the law by coming 

back in, but they then have to go back and serve the balance of 

their original sentence. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, aside from a reduction in sentence, I 

would like you to explore the issue that people are not sentenced. 

They are in detention—the detention sometimes lasts several 

years. Chester County paid out $1,700,000 for their board and 

keep, was only compensated a couple hundred thousand, and that 

is taxpayers’ money at the Federal level. 

Would you explore the issue beyond what you have said on those 

who have been convicted for lesser time, which I think is a good 

idea, to see if we can get these people out of our jails where they 

are minor offenders and send them back to the host country? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would be happy to, but I would also want 

to make sure that under that circumstance it is clear that if they 

come back in again illegally, they get a double whammy. They not 

only get punished for that, but they have to wind up serving their 

original— 

Senator SPECTER. Glad to see the double rap if they violate the 

law again. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Specter. 

Senator Kennedy? 

15 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Thank you and welcome. There 

are three areas I would like to cover, and I appreciate your cooperation in letting me try to get through them. 

One is an area that the Chairman has mentioned about the naturalization of individuals who want to become American citizens, the 

naturalization process. You are familiar with the timeline. In January 2007, the fees were increased. Historically, whenever the fees 

have been increased, the numbers have spiked before the fee increase. Against this background, we find that not only historically 

numbers have spiked, but we had a lot of NGOs conducting citizenship campaigns to increase the number of naturalization applicants, which did take place, and we had a fierce debate on the immigration bill in Congress, which caused a lot of concerns, and we 

should have anticipated that there was going to be a backlog problem. 

At that particular time, DHS was processing applications within 

7 months. Within 7 months. Now after the announcement of the increased fees, processing time has been extended to 14 to 16 

months. The administration had indicated you would reduce processing time by 20 percent-–20 percent of 7 months—but we have 

seen instead the increase in processing time to 14 to 16 months. 

At the present time, according to the figures that have been provided by CIS to the members of this Committee and our conversations, you would have been able to naturalize applicants up to the 

period of May of this year, May of 2008, and now the backlog is 

going to go back to July 2007. That is what CIS has told us. That 

amounts to 580,000-–580,000—individuals who applied in time who 

will not get the right to vote. Five hundred eighty thousand. Members of this Committee, have offered to provide additional resources, additional personnel, and we are stuck with this reality. 

What can you tell individuals who have played by the rules, have 

done the things that they have had to do that they do not have the 

right to vote, the most sacred right that we have in our country 

and our society, and have had background checks. Mr. Mueller and 

others have pointed out, in the background review of the naturalization applicant there is about 1 percent that have problems. 

When you have this enormous number of individuals who want 

to be a part of the American dream, who have paid their taxes, 

have met various requirements but are outside of the system, what 

answer can we possibly tell them for the reasons? And what, if anything, can you do about it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me say first of all that it is true that 

historically there has been an increase in applications in anticipation of a fee increase. However, in 1999, there was about a 30-percent increase. This year, there was over a 100-percent increase. So 

I think the dimensions are unprecedented. 

As soon as we got the money—and, of course, we needed the 

money to hire the adjudicators—we went out and trained and hired 

adjudicators, and we are deploying those. We have also worked 

with the FBI to reduce some of the delays in the background check 

process. 

The consequence of this is that we have reduced the lag time 

that we originally projected, which was 16 to 18 months. We are 

now projecting 13 to 15 months. And we are now projecting that 

16 

we will have processed within this fiscal year in time to vote over 

a million people. That is by comparison to about three-quarters of 

a million in 2007 and about 800,000 in 2006. 

So we are making more people citizens more rapidly than ever 

before, but I have to say mindful not to sacrifice the quality assurance. 

Obviously, we have more money in the system now. The limiting 

factor is we need—we still need, A, to train people to adjudicate 

and, B, the FBI has to be able to process the background checks. 

And that is— 

Senator KENNEDY. And I appreciate your response. It is still for 

people who have played by the rules and tried to get in line. 

Two other quick questions, because my time is running out. 

Today, your Department will issue two waivers—one that nullifies 

26 Federal laws, another that nullifies nearly 35 Federal laws. 

These new waivers will create sweeping zones of lawlessness along 

the entire U.S.-Mexico border. The New York Times is reporting 

that you refused to explain the decision to the House Energy and 

Commerce Committee. 

Is it your position that your waiver preempts large unnamed 

swaths of State land in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California? Your new waiver also applies to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law protecting churches from unlawful seizures. Do 

you intend to construct the walls on church property without consulting religious— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. No, this is a tribute to the fact that we 

have laws and creative lawyers that permit people to come up with 

all kinds of arguments about why we should— 

Senator KENNEDY. I happen to be the author of the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think it applies really to the border. I do not think it actually prevents us from building a fence, 

but I am quite sure that some lawyer would make an argument 

that it prevents it. We would then be in court for a couple of years 

fighting about it, and that would delay the process. 

The bottom line is we have done an enormous amount of consultation, and we will continue to do, with respect to the environmental rules. However, we are currently in a lawless situation at 

the border because we have not just human smuggling but drug 

smuggling and violence occurring there. I had to go visit with the 

family of a Border Patrol agent who was killed a couple months ago 

because a smuggler ran him over with a jeep. And that vehicle 

would not have been there if we had a vehicle barrier in place. 

So I feel an urgency to get this tactical infrastructure in, and although we are going to be respectful of the environment, we are 

going to be expeditious. 

Senator KENNEDY. I think all of us understand we need secure 

borders. The real question is whether the fence is effective. Half of 

all the undocumented are coming in and overstaying their visa. 

And the other side of this is that we are taking and preempting 

land in these areas, and that has to be, I think, done with great 

care. 

A final point, and my time is running out. This is on the number 

of Iraqi refugees that we are letting in. The administration said 

17 

that it is admitting 12,000 this year. This is outside of the newer 

program. It is just with regard to the numbers that were agreed 

to by the administration. 

On page 17 of your testimony, it says that the U.S. Government 

has put in place resources for up to 12,000. It says ‘‘up to 12,000.’’ 

What is it, Mr. Secretary? Is it going to be 12,000 or some nebulous 

goal? At the present time, the administration has admitted fewer 

than 3,000. 

I have listened to the testimony of the ICRC. This is one of the 

greatest humanitarian disasters of all time that is happening. We 

need them to admit move refugees, clearly. We had agreed to 

12,000. We are at 3,000 at the present time. What can you tell us? 

Are we going to meet that number? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the answer to that is yes, Senator. 

I think we are at about 3,900 right now. Now, of course, we are 

only one part of the process. There is the U.N. has to make the referrals and the State Department has to do certain things as well. 

I can assure you that in terms of our piece of the process, we are 

quite current with respect to interviews, and we have already done 

8,600 interviews and conditionally approved 8,600 total. Now, there 

are some other agencies that are part of the process before everything gets finalized, but we are not going to be an obstacle for hitting 12,000. We are on track to do our part to hit the 12,000. 

Senator KENNEDY. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, first, I have two unanimous consents: one, to put an opening statement in the record, and 

number two, to have some documents connected with my questions 

inserted in the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Senator GRASSLEY. The first thing I want to comment on is 

where Senator Specter left off. I’m only making this as a statement, not something for you to respond to. But along the lines of 

what Senator Specter was saying about H–1Bs, it’s my personal 

view, working with Republicans and Democrats on this issue, that 

the administration needs to think more about using its authority 

to deny visas. 

For instance, we have 18,000 Indian nationals here that India 

won’t take back. By the way, you don’t have to worry, I think, 

about India torturing their citizens. At least, I don’t think they 

have that reputation. But at the same time, we turn a blind eye 

and grant them 20,000 to 40,000 H–1B visas each year. 

My first question continues with H–1B visas, but in a different 

vein. Some companies applying for H–1B visas actually are looking 

for people in positions like pizza-tossers, hotel managers, llama 

farm operators. Even the Republican Party of California hired a 

Canadian as ‘‘State Deputy Political Director’’ through the H–1B 

pilot programs. 

Now, these don’t seem to me like the high-tech jobs that we’re 

hearing from industry that they need H–1B visas for. On March 

10th, I sent a letter asking for you to show progress on the promise 

18 

made August 2007 to reform visas programs, particularly H–1B. I 

asked about efforts to institute administrative reforms to reign in 

fraud and abuse. Your staff responded to me, saying that the Department has ‘‘convened working groups to identify and work on reforms’’. 

I realize that Congress needs to enact some changes, but I think 

that this is a very cavalier response to my letter that I have here, 

indicating that the issue of fraud and abusive in a vicious visa program is not being taken very seriously. In fact, I would have to say 

that your letter is a non-answer. 

So, my question: what are you doing to ensure that the program 

is not being abused and that the U.S. is bringing in the best and 

the brightest and not just a Republican Party political director for 

the State of California? Obviously they need some new advice out 

there. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me at least give you two examples. 

One, is we have, I think, promulgated a regulation that prevents 

or discounts companies that were abusing the process by filing 

multiple applications for the same people. There were some companies that were flooding the process by having, you know, 10, 20, 30 

applications, and because it was a lottery system, they were basically buying more lottery tickets. So we’ve cut that out. 

The second thing we want to do, although it’s still in the administrative regulatory process, is we want to deal with the problem 

of companies that attempt to essentially hoard the zone by so dominating the process or banking H–1Bs that other companies don’t 

have an opportunity to compete. That is in the rulemaking process. 

I can attest to you, it always takes a lot longer than I’d like it 

to take because the Administrative Procedures Act makes getting 

a regulation out of the executive branch like passing a kidney 

stone. It just takes an enormous amount of time. I’m kicking people 

to get this moving as quickly as possible, because I agree that the 

program has been abused. I promise you, I will continue to prod 

on these issues, because I agree with you, we should not let some 

companies try to exploit the process. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I would appreciate, on another point— 

this being the Optional Practical Training Program—more information. I’ll get into some details in just a minute. But this program 

is administered by your Department. I’d like to make sure we know 

who is here on OPT and what they’re doing. 

Foreign students obviously are the ones that take advantage of 

this. There are no requirements, like wage requirements, no protections of our own U.S. students or workers, virtually no strings attached. These are people that could be sitting on the beach in California for a year, they could be playing some guitar on the streets 

of New York, who knows what. 

I know you’re responding to the squeals of powerful business interests regarding their inability to bring in an infinite number of 

foreign workers through the H–1B visa program. Their latest attempt to get around the H–1B program is to keep these foreign students here longer than 1 year. We don’t keep track of them. 

So, two questions. Does the Department of Homeland Security 

know how many people are in the United States on OPT status 

today? Second, does the Department know where each and every 

19 

person with OPT status is in the United States if they needed to 

track them down? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think—I believe the answer to that, but 

I’m going to have to verify it, is yes to the first, and to the second, 

you know, if we grant someone Optional Practical Training, it’s 

with the understanding that they’re going to be working in a particular setting. 

Now, could someone abscond or violate the rule? Yes, that happens all the time. I mean, people violate rules all the time. Then, 

of course, they would not only lose their OPT status, but they 

would lose the possibility of ultimately getting a green card or a 

long-term work visa, which, from their standpoint and from the 

company’s standpoint, would be a pretty serious sanction. So, I’ll 

get—I mean, I’ll verify all this, but that’s my understanding. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Last fall, I sent you a letter asking for information about two University of South Florida students arrested 

near Goose Creek, South Carolina with explosives in their trunk. 

They’re Egyptian nationals, and have been charged with terrorismrelated offenses. I learned that one of them, Ahmed Mohammed, 

entered the United States on a student visa, despite having been 

previously arrested in Egypt. Worse than that, he had even declared his arrest on his visa application form. 

I then inquired to find out why the State Department and why 

your Department failed to use their shared responsibilities over 

visa policies to keep an individual like this, and this specific individual, out of the country. It took 4 months to get a reply from your 

Department, and even then all I got was a letter that denied my 

request on the grounds that the indicted terrorist had not consented to the release of his records. 

So, could you explain why this Committee should be denied information necessary to conduct oversight of the visa issuance process 

just because an indicted terrorist, who is neither a U.S. citizen nor 

a legal permanent resident, didn’t give his consent? Doesn’t that 

sound a little ridiculous? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, it does. But unfortunately sometimes 

we operate under constraints that are—legal constraints that are 

a little bit puzzling. Let me tell you what my understanding of the 

rule is. First of all, obviously I can’t publicly comment about the 

individual because there’s a pending case. The case is going to go 

to trial. If I say anything about the individual in a public forum, 

I’m going to have a judge getting on my back about why I’m, you 

know, creating a problem for the jury. 

In terms of responding in writing, my understanding is that if 

the Chairman makes a request for this kind of information we are 

permitted, under the relevant laws, to convey a lot of this information. And that’s just the way the law is written. I didn’t write it, 

but we have to abide by it. So if the Chairman makes the request, 

I think that does give us an ability to be a little more forthcoming 

about this. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure I was aware of 

that law. I was treated rudely by the Department as a FOIA request, not as a Senator’s request. So I might ask you to sign a letter for some information that I might want on some of these issues 

20 

that I’m not getting an answer because I’m not Chairman of the 

Committee. 

Chairman LEAHY. For several decades, the Senator from Iowa 

and I have worked together, when he’s been in the Majority or 

when I’ve been in the Majority, to get things, and of course I’ll 

work with him. If we can sit down later, we’ll figure it out what 

it is you want and I’ll join you on the request. 

Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chertoff, I’d like to join with those who thank you for your 

service. It is very much appreciated. 

As you know, I have a lot of concerns about the visa waiver program. I believe it’s the soft underbelly of this country. And because 

so many millions come in from so many countries, it represents a 

real threat not only to profound over-stays, but also to the security 

of our Nation. 

Not long ago, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, and I had a hearing 

and, on March 3rd, the three of us sent you a letter requesting that 

DHS explain how it plans to comply with two requirements of the 

9/11 legislation, specifically that it develop a fully operational electronic travel authorization system, and second, that it certify that 

there’s an air exit system in place that can verify the departure of 

97 percent of the foreign nationals who leave through airports in 

the United States. 

At the hearing on February 28th, we were informed by your staff 

that DHS may use a methodology that only tracks departures without considering whether an individual arrived in determining the 

departure of the 97 percent. In other words, if two people come into 

the country, or three, or four, or five, and only one leaves, the only 

track is on the one that leaves. This is what we were told. 

We wrote to you, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, and I, that such 

a methodology is unacceptable. It does not account for a person 

who has arrived and departure, nor does it track those who have 

over-stayed their visas. Now, we haven’t received a response. We 

believe that methodology violates the law. If you care to respond 

to this now, we’d be very happy. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I’d be happy to. I will write a letter, but I 

actually pulled the letter because I wasn’t satisfied it was clear. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You thought it might come up? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I wasn’t satisfied it was clear enough. 

I think there might have been, in the prior hearing, the Committee 

and the witness might have talked past each other. So, let me try 

to explain my understanding of the law, which I have looked at and 

I have in front of me. 

First of all, we will have the electronic system of travel authorization up and running before the program—before the expansion 

of the program. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. At every port of entry? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. It’s not a port of entry. For every—for 

traveler—before we admit a country into the program, they will 

have to—their visitors will have to submit the electric travel authorization. It’s not done at the port of entry, it’s done online before 

you leave. So by the time you arrive at the port of entry, we will 

have done the assessment of the travel authorization. 

21 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me stop you there. What are there, 23 

million people that come in? It’s 13 million people, or 16 million, 

I believe, came in. So does that refer to the existing countries in 

the visa waiver program or only the new countries? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will begin with the new countries. Existing countries, we will then, as we expand the program over the 

next 9 months, we will bring all the old countries in. But the requirement of the law is, as a predicate to admitting the new country, we have to have this in place. This is something we argued for. 

We want it to happen. So we are going to begin in a few months 

with the first deployment of the system and we’ll begin with some 

of the smaller countries first and start the process there, and then 

ultimately we will cover everybody. With respect to the 97 percent— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Incidentally, if I might. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I will. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The countries you’re admitting are all above 

the legal refusal rate. We know that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So then we come to the next element, because there are a number of tests that have to be met. The current—the old rule was, the visa refusal rate was 3 percent. The 

statute raised the visa refusal rate to 10 percent. That allowed 

some countries that fell within the 3 percent to 10 percent range 

to become eligible, provided they did the other things in the statute. 

One of the things the statute then provides, is that the Secretary 

of State and I, or my successor, can admit countries using an alternative to the visa refusal rate if we can demonstrate that the actual over-stay rate is below a certain number that we have to determine is consistent with national security. In order to make that 

determination, we have to compare the entry and the exit to make 

sure that we know how many people from each country are overstaying and how many are leaving, and that’s what we need to do 

in order to get to that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, but in other words, you’re making up 

your own refusal rate. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I’m— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The law says 10 percent. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just finish. Latvia, which you’re going 

to admit, is at 11.8 percent; Slovakia, 12 percent; Lithuania, 12.9 

percent; and Hungary, at 10.3 percent. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Those will only be admitted when they fall 

below 10 percent. I think if you—in other words, you may be using 

figures from last year. These are countries which are laying the 

groundwork to be admitted, but they will have to meet the 10 percent or below threshold. We’re not waiving the 10 percent requirement, but they are, as your own figures indicate, coming very close 

to 10 percent. So— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What are the other countries that you are 

going to admit? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the ones we’ve signed up so far, and 

these are the ones we think are close to satisfying the requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
22 

ments, are: the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and 

Hungary. I think there are other states that—that’s in Eastern Europe. It may be that South Korea will be in a position relatively 

soon to meet the requirement. 

Some of the other countries are further off and, although they 

may begin the process of negotiating on other elements, I think everybody understands, until they hit all the requirements, they will 

not actually be admitted. But some of them may want to get started on some of the information exchange and things of that sort, you 

know, while they’re hoping to drive the visa refusal rate down, and 

that’s OK. But we’re not excusing them from the visa refusal rate 

requirement, we’re just trying to get some of the preliminary work 

done so when the hit the mark they can then be admitted. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And what you’re telling us is that every one 

of the visitors, which will be, literally, hundreds of thousands that 

come in in these programs will have the fraud-proof passport, they 

will be checked when they come in, and they will be checked when 

they go out? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And you will know where they are in this 

country when they come in? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we will know that they’ve come in. 

They will put on their form where they’re going to be, and then we 

will know when they leave. Now, as with any other visitor, if someone says they’re going to be in Massachusetts and they lie to us 

and they go to Ohio, we’re not going to know that until the time 

comes that they should have departed. At that point we’ll know the 

over-stayed. 

Now, will we be able to find them immediately? It depends. It depends if they’re hiding or not. That’s true of all kinds of fugitives. 

But we will have achieved, I think, what we did not have, which 

is visibility into the flow in and out such that we can determine 

whether a particular country has an over-stay rate that is unacceptable, which I think is ultimately where we all want to go. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. I think my time has run out. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. May I enter these two letters into the 

record? 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. One on visa waiver, and the second on border 

tunnels. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

My list had Senator Sessions next, but he’s not here. Senator 

Kyl? 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Oh. Senator Sessions is here. I’m sorry. 

Senator SESSIONS. I’ll defer to Senator Kyl. That’s fine. 

Chairman LEAHY. OK. I take my list from the Republican side, 

so— 

Senator KYL. We are a courteous bunch, and I appreciate that 

very much from my colleague. I think Senator Sessions was here 

first. 

But, Mr. Secretary, you have an impossible job to do. There’s always room to find criticism. I hope that it’s always constructive. I 

do appreciate your efforts, and those of your Department. 

23 

I just want to lead by saying that over the break I was down in 

Yuma. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it might be of interest that over 

half of all of the illegal immigrants coming into the United States 

across our border come through the Tucson sector, about 51 or 52 

percent, so this is a huge problem in Arizona and the Tucson sector 

has a lot of work to do. The Yuma sector is the other part of the 

Arizona border and goes over into Senator Feinstein’s State for 

about 10 or 12 miles. 

What is illustrated by Congress’ efforts, with the Department of 

Homeland Security, is that when we put our mind to it, we can significantly affect the problem of illegal crossing. Fences are being 

constructed, vehicle barriers, double fences, a lot more agents, radars deployed, and all of this has had a dramatic impact, along 

with one other program which I’m going to get to, and that is automatically detaining and not releasing to the border Mexican citizens. 

The combination of these has, at least in the first 6 months of 

the fiscal year, reduced illegal immigration in this sector by an 

order of magnitude. Now, that’s a big change. What it shows is that 

if we have the will and if we apply the resources, we can get the 

job done. 

The one question I have, Mr. Secretary, is that, as you know, in 

the Yuma sector they have begun to do the same thing that’s been 

done in Del Rio, Texas, and the Tucson sector is also beginning, the 

detention of aliens with the prospect, in most cases, of a 60-day detention in jail automatically. It’s a zero-tolerance policy. This has 

had a dramatic deterrent effect. People just don’t want to come 

through that area because they can’t afford to be 60 days without 

work, and that’s those that just come to work and not commit a 

crime. 

The question I have, and I would appreciate a written answer, 

really, because we have a lot of information from the chief judge 

of the Arizona District Court for that area, about what they need 

to process this many people, is your estimates of the costs that the 

Congress can help defray for the entire tale of the judicial process 

from the additional court space, the judges, the magistrates, the 

marshals, the clerks, the prosecutors, the public defenders, and, 

perhaps most importantly, the detention space itself. 

What would be needed to ensure that this kind of program could 

continue in Yuma and could be fully implemented in the Tucson 

sector, and anywhere else along the border that you think it 

should, and what do you think about the program? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First, let me say I think the program is a 

great program. To be clear for the public, this is more than just detention. We do detain everybody, as it is under immigration authorities, until we deport them. This is actual criminal punishment, 

which does have a remarkable deterrent effect and it’s worked very 

well in the Del Rio sector. 

As far as the money, I’m delighted to answer. I’m going to need 

to have the Department of Justice really put the facts together, because it’s really their stuff rather than mine. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll make that inquiry of 

them. 

24 

But Congress has, over the last 3 years, at least, been very willing to fund whatever works. It seems to me that this is one of those 

things that clearly works, and I do know that there is additional 

funding that will be required for this. 

Is there sufficient money for the remainder of 2008 to achieve 

the fencing requirements that you identified in your opening statement, and does the budget for 2009 reflect an adequate sum to do 

the remainder of the work in 2009? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The answer to that is yes. The money that’s 

appropriated in 2008, already appropriated, is sufficient to get us 

through what we need to do this fiscal year. The money we’ve requested for 2009 would get us to what we need in 2009, but of 

course that hasn’t passed yet, so that depends on Congress. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

With regard to the exit-entry system—Senator Feinstein talked 

a little bit about this—on page 15 of your testimony you talked a 

little bit about this. First of all, can you describe the process when 

it becomes apparent that an individual has not exited, but should 

have by then? What actually happens in terms of notifying other 

law enforcement so that whoever might have an opportunity to inquire of the individual in terms of law enforcement authority, a 

highway patrolman in some State, or whoever it might be, would 

actually have the information enabling them to know to ask the appropriate questions? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the answer is that under the current system we have some, but not complete, information on this 

at our law enforcement center up in—I think it’s up in Vermont, 

where if you apprehend someone you can call and get information. 

But we have not yet fully automated it. To do that, we need to 

move from the current biographic-based system which looks at 

names to a biometric-based system which is fingerprints. That is, 

of course, US-VISIT air exit. 

Now, I would very much like to do this this year. We can get it 

done by next summer, but there’s one obstacle: the airlines are bitterly opposed to it. I know they’ve been up here complaining about 

it, because they view the requirement of giving fingerprints, if 

you’re a foreigner, when you leave the country, as interfering with 

their business model. This, Senator, goes right back to the point we 

made earlier about willpower. We can get it done. We’re poised to 

issue a rule. But it will require the willpower to face down the airline industry in order to implement it. 

Senator KYL. I appreciate that. Why doesn’t the biographical information itself—if, for example, you have a name and then any 

other identifying feature, a Social Security number or a birthplace, 

whatever it is, if that information is sent to all of the local police, 

highway patrol, and elsewhere, wouldn’t that be a significant improvement over the lack of any information today? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it’s—I don’t know if I’m that well 

versed in the technical element, but I think simply sending a list 

of that all over the place would, I think, be really inefficient. I’d 

like to see us move to a system where, when you get the overstays—right now it’s a system where we know when you leave. 

If we could get it all integrated in a data base, particularly with 

a fingerprint data base so there was a unique identifier, we could 

25 

then construct an automated system that—and I think we have it 

partly now, but not entirely—kicks out when you are, let’s say, over 

90 days or whatever it is, or a week over 90 days. That could then 

be in our data base in Vermont and anybody who wanted to ping 

it could ping it if they arrest somebody. It would be up to the local 

law enforcement. 

So I think we have this partially in effect now, but I’m not confident that we have it seamlessly or fully in effect. Some of it is 

an automation problem, but some of it is that, in general, a namesbased system is not as reliable as a fingerprint-based system. 

Senator KYL. Well, understood. But, you know, Mohammed 

Attah, for example, was stopped, I believe it was twice. If he had 

used his name—and I gather he did—if law enforcement had had 

a place to call in, then a whole lot of things might not have happened that ended up happening. It just seems to me that perfection 

shouldn’t be the enemy of the good here. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree. I agree. We’re going to be working 

toward this, I agree with you. I just want to make sure that we 

do it in a way that’s cost-effective so we don’t waste money. That’s 

the only other constraint. 

Senator KYL. Well, let me just ask one final question here. If it’s 

in the Vermont data base, what would be necessary for a local law 

enforcement, or say highway patrol, to gain access to that data 

base in a real-time way, like a traffic stop? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think they call in. I don’t know whether 

they go in online or whether they call in, but there is a way they 

can communicate in. And they use it. The system does yield benefits. The reason I’m a little hesitant, is I’m not sure it is a complete 

system. It may depend upon what we input as opposed to something that’s fully automated. 

Senator KYL. Would you, for the record, expand on that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, I will. 

Senator KYL. Have your office give us a more complete answer 

on that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I’ll give you a more complete and maybe a 

more—I’m not fully confident in my answer, so I want to give you 

a verified answer. 

Senator KYL. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. 

And I thank my colleagues. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Schumer? 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you. And, first, Mr. Chairman, I 

want to thank you for having these hearings, which are very important. I appreciate Secretary Chertoff being here. 

First, I’d like to start off with some questions on border security. 

As a New Yorker, as an American, I have an unshakable commitment to securing our country from those who want to harm us. 

However, when it comes to border security, as you know, Mr. Secretary, I’ve sometimes differed with DHS on the best way to 

achieve the goal. 

First, I want to thank the Department for their little-noticed, but 

important regulation that said that they were going to comply with 

the law that Senator Leahy and others put into effect to delay the 

passports until 2009. I just want to say that I appreciate, Secretary 

26 

Chertoff, your efforts to work with New York State to develop an 

enhanced driver’s license that can be used instead of passports to 

cross land borders in Canada. 

I think the licenses, the enhanced licenses, building on REAL ID, 

something I’ve always supported, is a very good alternative that 

gives us both security, but makes commerce easier. If they’re done 

right, they can assure both. I want to tell you, I’ve spoken to Governor Patterson. I know we had had meetings that I had set up between you and Governor Spitzer, which myself Senator Clinton, 

Congressmen Reynolds and Slaughter attended, and now we have 

Governor Patterson. I know he fully supports the development of 

enhanced licenses. 

I understand the process is going well, from your Department 

and from New York State’s point of view. New York has submitted 

a business plan for your Department’s approval. The goal is rolling 

out the new licenses State-wide by the late summer, and focusing 

on the border areas first—Buffalo, Watertown, Plattsburg, places 

that really have the need. 

So to move forward, New York is going to need a timely response 

to their proposed plan. When can you commit to giving a response 

to New York’s business plan for enhanced driver’s licenses? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can’t give you a precise date. We will do 

it promptly because we’ve already—you know, not only did we approve the State of Washington, they’ve actually begun the process 

of issuing them. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. They’ve issued 6,500. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So we’ll do it as fast as we can. 

Senator SCHUMER. Do you think within the next month we can 

get an answer? Our goal is to get this going before 2009. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe the answer to that is yes. I’m 

going to have to verify that. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. If you could verify, but I’ll take it as a 

tentative yes, which I appreciate. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I certainly like you doing that. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to. 

Senator SCHUMER. Now, if you have concerns with New York’s 

plan, will you commit to working cooperatively and productively 

with New York to resolve concerns rather than sending us back to 

square one? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Oh, absolutely. We want this. We think this 

is a good thing. This is—there’s a unity of interest here. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. And will you commit to just doing whatever you can so that we can start issuing the licenses, as we hope, 

by the end of the summer? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. OK. 

And do you agree with me that enhanced driver licenses, if done 

right, will be just as secure for border crossings as passport books? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator SCHUMER. Good. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. For land borders. 

27 

Senator SCHUMER. This is a very good interchange. We don’t 

have so many of those these days. 

So wouldn’t it make more sense right now for DHS to focus limited resources on driver licenses—it provides better security and efficiency—as opposed to a new rule that requires birth certificates 

at the border, which, in the past, you had even said was not the 

best way to go about doing this? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Here’s the problem. The problem is that I 

believe that next June—not every State is going to want to do the 

license. I think by next June we can easily be in a position to meet 

the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The 

problem I have is that I’ve got to deal with the period of time between now and next June. 

As I said in the opening statement, just a couple of weeks ago 

we found a guy coming through Buffalo trying to make an oral declaration, discovered that that wasn’t going to work anymore, got 

pulled into the secondary, and we discovered he was masquerading 

as an American citizen. He’d been rejected coming into the country 

in Mexico. He had been previously removed. So I’m trying to plug 

a gap now in the interim between where we sit and June 2009, but 

I very much want to see us, in June 2009, with an enhanced driver’s license. For any State that will do it, we’ll be happy to do it. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. And New York does, Washington does. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator SCHUMER. I mean, the worry here is this summer when 

the traffic over the borders increases. You have all kinds of vacationers. We in New York State expect a lot of Canadians coming, 

given the values of the dollar, to help our tourist season. We’re 

worried that if they think it’s going to be very onerous—so far it 

hasn’t. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator SCHUMER. And, you know, when they say they don’t 

have a birth certificate, you just give them a warning. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, the Canadians are—I mean, we’ve 

had to get their attention, too. The Canadians are now putting 

money into their budget for increased distribution of Nexus cards, 

which I know you know is also acceptable. 

Senator SCHUMER. That’s fine. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So, you know, we’re working through the 

process. But we do have to deal with an existing act. 

Senator SCHUMER. I would just urge you to focus fully on driver’s 

licenses. The birth certificates, in my judgment, are going to be a 

dead end. 

Anyway, let me go to something else, which is citizenship backlogs, which I know the Chairman and Senator Kennedy have asked 

questions about. I just have a few more because, as you know, we 

received a letter from CIS which explained the status of naturalization applications pending with CIS. 

The letter states, ‘‘Historically, there have been increased filings 

in advance of fee increases, Presidential elections, immigration debates, and new legislation.’’ Now, given that DHS is aware of 

trends in application filings, how is DHS credible in saying it 

couldn’t have anticipated a major surge in applications in 2007, 

28 

where we saw a fee increase, the start of a Presidential campaign, 

and a national immigration debate all at once? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would say, if we go back historically, in 

1999, which was the last major increase, there was a bump-up of 

about 30 percent. It was the magnitude. The bump-up here was 

over 100 percent. So, that was one. I think the magnitude startled 

everybody. But the larger problem is this. In order to deal with the 

mass of people, you need to hire adjudicators and people to deal 

with the work. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Until you get the fee increase you can’t hire 

them, because you can’t hire people if you don’t pay it. Then once 

we got the fee increase, we began to hire, but they still have to be 

trained. So, inevitably there is some lag that occurs when you— 

until you get the money in the pipeline— 

Senator SCHUMER. Let me interrupt you here for a minute because my time is running out. I understand the training. I would 

like to see even a sort of program where, out of the general fund, 

people could be hired in anticipation of the fees coming in, because 

we can’t wait. 

But let’s just talk about the training. Last year, as you know, I 

pushed CIS. I pushed to have CIS get authority to re-hire retired 

workers—they don’t have to be trained, they’ve been doing this for 

years, and often decades, very well—to help address the backlog. 

That was in December. I regret to say it’s now April and not one 

has been hired. We called in the former head of CIS, who had very 

poor—he’s no longer there. He resigned the same day we talked to 

him, although he didn’t tell us that he was resigning. 

But he had very poor answers in terms of contacting people. 

There were 700 people that they’d identified. They sent them a letter. There was no followup. These people are invaluable, because 

some of them would want to get back to work. Now we’ve made it 

so that they don’t get their pensions cutoff or anything by coming 

back and working till you can train the new workers. Can you give 

us some assurances about the retired workers and going all out to 

hire them as quickly as possible, particularly - 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me find out. 

Senator SCHUMER.—when we have the Presidential election coming up soon. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me find out about that. I wasn’t aware 

there was a problem rehiring them. I know that our estimates 

about the number of people we can process have gotten better. 

We’ve had a higher and higher projection as time has gone on. 

Again, as I said earlier, I would like to process as many people as 

we can, consistent with, obviously, security. So, I’ll find out about 

that. 

Senator SCHUMER. Could you get back to me? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Because to not hire one retiree, when I know 

there are many who want to come work and they don’t need the 

rehiring, that’s the, at least, most immediate answer. I think the 

Department is sort of twiddling its thumbs. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I’ll find out the answer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. 

29 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. I 

think you’re one of the most able members of the President’s cabinet. I’ve known you for a number of years and I highly respect you 

and your capabilities. 

I do believe that this administration has been less than fully 

committed in terms of will to creating a lawful system of immigration in our country and eliminating some of the border problems, 

and you and I have had discussions about that. But you have made 

some progress. 

First, I’ll ask you about that. Arrests were down 20 percent last 

year. Just for those who may not understand, the year before we 

arrested 1.1 million people entering our country illegally, and that 

reduction took us down to about 870,000. That is 20 percent. 

Do you think that is a reflection on the number of people who 

are attempting to enter the country also? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do. It’s not a perfect reflection, but we 

also validate it by looking at other measures, like activities south 

of the border and things of that sort. So I’m comfortable, I’m persuaded, that it is, in general, a reflection of the decrease in efforts 

to come across. 

Senator SESSIONS. Some of that, I think, is because we’ve sent 

a message to the world that the border is no longer open. We’ve 

had the National Guard there, although I’m very concerned, and I 

think the Governors of California and New Mexico also, of the removal of the National Guard that will be occurring this summer 

and the increased enforcement in fencing, and barriers, and Border 

Patrol, all of which work, and the prosecutorial policy in those four 

districts seems to be working. 

So those are things we know work. The question is, will we follow through and continue to see another reduction, and another reduction? Certainly in my own view, this Nation could easily get to 

an 80 percent reduction in illegality at our borders in the next few 

years if we have, as a Nation, the commitment to do so. 

There are some questions that have been raised about your 

waiving environmental rules so that these barriers could be constructed at the border. We realize in Congress, when we passed the 

Fencing Act, that these lawsuits could delay indefinitely. 

I would note that you have a letter sent to you from the Secretary of Interior, the Associate Deputy, saying that, ‘‘Because our 

visitors and employees are at risk, we had to close off substantial 

portions of Department of Interior lands. The infrastructure will 

improve the security of our lands and increase the safety of both 

our visitors and our employees. Finally, these pedestrian and vehicle fences will decrease some adverse environmental effects of the 

illegal activities upon the fragile plant and animal communities located within the Interior lands.’’ 

So the Department of Interior has indicated it will actually help 

the environment by reducing this broad traffic that’s occurring 

there. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That’s correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. They sent that to you. 

30 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. That was part of your decision-making process. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. And I’ve also discussed this with 

the Secretary. So, I mean, we had a discussion over months about 

this issue. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we realized from the beginning that if 

we intended to move decisively on barriers at the border, lawsuits 

of this kind would have to be taken off the table. 

On the E-Verify, some 58,000 employers now utilize this computer system to verify the person’s Social Security number that 

they’re hiring before they hire. I understand 1,000 per week employers are signing up. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS. Tell us about the accuracy of that, briefly. Are 

there benefits for innocent people, legitimate people, when a ‘‘no 

match’’ occurs? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I gave you some figures earlier. Now I’m 

actually—I’ve reminded myself, I think actually the figures—those 

might be slightly out of date. They’ve actually gotten better. 

Basically, inaccuracies, where there’s actually a mistake in the 

system, are less than 1 percent, and those get resolved. What we 

find is that about 95 percent, I think is the most recent figure, get 

immediately validated through the system on the spot. Then of the 

remainder, there’s a very small number where there is a mistake 

and it’s rectified. 

Of course, there are some where there’s not a mistake and those 

people, not surprisingly, just fade away because they realize that 

their Social Security number isn’t valid. We are enhancing the system by giving people the capability with certain kinds of documents, Federal documents, to also verify with a photograph that 

the underlying document is, in fact, accurate and matches our data 

base, and that makes it even a more useful system. 

This is not a cure-all because it doesn’t necessarily catch the person who steals a legal person’s identity, so that remains a vulnerability we’re trying to deal with in other ways. I do want to take 

the opportunity, Senator, to again plead to have this reauthorized. 

The authorization runs out this year. Everybody wants it. Let’s enable those who want to obey the law to do that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. There’s no doubt that we should 

reauthorize it. In fact, we should require it and move forward with 

that. It would be one of the most significant steps this Nation could 

take. But a lot of employers apparently are quite willing to do this 

when asked. It’s certainly a minimal disruption of their business. 

I think they are given their information within seconds, or minutes, of the inquiry. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. It’s not going to delay the employment. I 

would offer for the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano. She says this about the National Guard: ‘‘We continue to remove, and eventually terminate, a 

successful program using the National Guard in our border Operation Jump Start. I urgently request that you reconsider the 

drawn-down of Jump Start and instead retain National Guard perVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 045594 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45594.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
31 

sonnel strength and numbers necessary to maintain the hard-won 

improvements and operational controls of the international border.’’ 

Mr. Secretary, first, I’ll offer that for the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

Senator SESSIONS. And, second, are you concerned about the removal of the Guard at the border under the current law? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Senator, when we started this 2 years ago 

we had about 11,300 Border Patrol. The understanding was, we 

were going to have 6,000 Guard. They were going to drawn down 

over 2 years as we matched them, basically, one-for-one with our 

Border Patrol. By the time we do the draw-down in July, we will 

be at about 16,500, so we will essentially have added 5,000 Border 

Patrol, a little over 5,000 Border Patrol, to replace the National 

Guard that have been pulled off. 

I should also say that we have always, and will continue to, use 

National Guard not just—not under Jump Start, but under routine 

training, so you will continue to see National Guard at the border, 

but it won’t be under this program and it won’t be in the same 

number. 

I am confident that we have the personnel in place so that, as 

of this summer, we will essentially be pretty close to one-for-one replacement of National Guard with Border Patrol. All things being 

equal, a Border Patrol agent is more effective than a National 

Guardsman because they can do more things. 

We are also using— 

Senator SESSIONS. But you would have to admit, would you not, 

it would reduce your capability because even though you’re bringing on Border Patrol agents, the Guard is providing— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It surely provides a capability. But— 

Senator SESSIONS. Capability that would be lost. My time is 

about out. I would offer, Mr. President, an article in the New York 

Times, March 28, indicating that there are 304,000 immigrant 

criminals eligible for deportation that are behind bars, in jail today. 

Senator Specter asked you some about that. If you need additional 

money— 

Chairman LEAHY. It will be made part of the record, without objection. 

Senator SESSIONS.—I would ask that you ask for that. I mean, 

it’s just fundamental that we follow through on that requirement. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we have asked for money and I 

think we have a strategy that we have presented to the appropriators for this. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I hope that you will. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. Just quickly, of the 

304,000 that were discussed, how many of those folks eligible for 

deportation are presently Federal inmates? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know the answer to that. I’m sure 

only a fraction are. I’m sure most of them are— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, presumably a very small fraction. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

32 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But if you could get that number, I would 

appreciate it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In terms of our evaluation of that question, you’ve indicated that there are concerns about the treatment 

of the inmate in the host country if they were to return, particularly being subject to torture. That would be one concern. Another 

concern, I assume you would agree, would be inmates who are so 

dangerous, that we’d rather keep them locked up tight in the 

United States rather than face the risk of reentry if we don’t have 

confidence in the security of the system in the home country, major 

heads of drug-dealing organizations and things like that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I guess, yes, if you have a really bad 

guy. If we got a sentence that’s a life sentence, I’d rather keep him 

locked up for life than send him out, unless I’m confident that the 

host country will let this— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. So that will be an issue. 

Are there reciprocality issues? Would you be concerned that 

Americans would be—we’d have to treat, say, a— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. No. I don’t want to over—the issue of 

torture is a very small number. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I understand. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So that’s not a big issue. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Lots of issues. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The largest issue is, frankly, some countries are just very dilatory about taking their people back. China 

is really the worst in that respect. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Interestingly, the Latin American countries 

are quite good, and we work with them and they’re very effective 

in taking their people back. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And has the experience been that if 

they’re released into those systems, they actually are kept? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It hasn’t been uniform. Sometimes, unfortunately, some of the countries in Latin America don’t have the capability, and we try to work with them. We’ve given them assistance 

in identifying people who are being sent back who are dangerous 

so they can try to keep them in jail. But once they serve their sentence, as you know, we can’t just keep them in jail. The host country can’t keep them in jail. That’s a problem. That is a problem for 

us. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And would you have any problem incarcerating, in the United States, an American who was convicted of a 

foreign crime in a foreign country and deported from that country 

for an immigration violation on the same terms that we’re talking 

about in which we would deport foreign nationals subject to incarceration in their home country to— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it has to be done by treaty. In other 

words, we have these prisoner exchange treaties. I know with Mexico, for example, if you get a 20-year sentence in Mexico, we have 

an arrangement where you can, as a U.S. citizen, serve your time 

back in the U.S., and vice versa. I think if someone were deported 

without that, we would have trouble putting them in jail unless we 

could prosecute them under our own laws. 

33 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the treaty would be a key component. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That’s right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And we have that, I know, with Mexico. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. On a different subject, are you familiar 

with the OCDETF program? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. From my last job, it’s dimly implanted in 

my mind, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Familiar enough to describe it briefly for 

people who are listening and don’t know what we’re talking about? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. My knowledge may be out of date. Back 

when I was head of the Criminal Division when I was a prosecutor, 

it was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. It was 

designed to bring together Federal and State authorities to focus 

on, you know, more organized narcotics trafficking organizations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it’s still going and very active and 

very helpful in your estimation, is it not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have—to the extent I know. But I have 

to say I don’t have a lot of visibility into it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. The Fusion Center program that the 

administration has embarked on in a variety of different areas. Are 

you familiar with that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There is evidently an OCDETF, to use one 

term, Fusion Center, to use another, not far from where we’re sitting right now whose function is to fuse, to bring together, information from a variety of Federal law enforcement agencies to enhance 

the mission of protecting us from organized criminal organizations 

that traffic in narcotics. 

I am informed that the Immigration and Customs enforcement 

folks refuse to participate in it, won’t send someone to the meetings, won’t like data bases to what is called the Compass program, 

which is the computer network set up for the Fusion Center to integrate ATF, FBI, Secret Service, all the different law enforcement 

computer data bases. I’m interested—and I understand that the 

Border Patrol is now beginning to look at participating, but to date 

hasn’t. Since those are both DHS agencies, I’m wondering if you 

know why they’re refusing to participate in this function. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I had not heard that, so I’ll just have to 

find out. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would you? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because I think it makes sense. Between 

the two of us, we can agree that if the purpose of the OCDETF 

function is to protect this country from organized criminal efforts 

to engage in narcotics trafficking, the Border/Customs function is 

a pretty darned essential part of that equation. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Oh, there’s no question about it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And when you have Treasury agencies, 

Justice agencies, and all sorts of other kinds of agencies—and you 

and I both remember—I was a U.S. Attorney, as you may recall— 

it can be pretty complicated to chase through multiple data bases 

if you had to find a particular individual. To coordinate those in 

these Fusion Centers seems like a pretty good idea. 

34 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t know 

enough about the specifics to give you an answer. But I’ll find out 

about it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you could find out why they’re refusing 

to participate, and if there’s a reason that they aren’t doing it, I’d 

like to try to get through that reason. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If there’s no reason, if you could clear 

whatever bureaucracy. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. I will look into that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you could let me know when you’ll get 

back to me. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. OK. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thirty days? Sixty days? Ninety days? 

Pick a number. Any time is good for me, just so I know. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Why don’t we say 45 days? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Forty-five days. I’d appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. I will do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, it’s good to see you. Thank you for your service. 

I agree with Senator Kyl, you’ve got perhaps one of the most difficult jobs in the President’s cabinet. But I think you’ve done an 

outstanding job. I appreciate your working with me and my constituents in Texas. I want to go into that in just a little bit here. 

First, let’s talk about the Secure Fence Act. On September 29, 

2006, it passed by a vote of 80 to 19. Interestingly, all of the potential nominees for President of the United States voted ‘‘aye’’. Of 

course, it passed with strong bipartisan support. 

I, frankly, felt like it needed some additional modification. Senator Hutchison and I sponsored an amendment that required consultation with local land owners and community leaders, and 

you’ve been very good about doing that consultation. I want to talk 

about that in just a second. 

But first I want to also relay some statistics with regard to the 

work you’ve done to try to get voluntary cooperation with local land 

owners in my State. As you know, unlike some of the other States 

on the border, Texas is largely private property. Frankly, a lot of 

these landowners have told me they’re afraid to go out on their own 

ranch unprotected because of criminal activity occurring, coming 

across the border, particularly associated with narco-trafficking, 

and the like. 

But out of 414, I believe, land owners along the Southwest border 

that have agreed to access by the Department of Homeland Security, only 46 have refused access, roughly 10 percent. Of course, we 

know that there is litigation occurring in some cases. I’m glad to 

see that there are negotiated settlements occurring, particularly 

with institutions like the University of Texas at Brownsville, to try 

to work out something that makes sense. 

35 

I had mixed feelings about the Secure Fence Act because I didn’t 

want anybody to be under the misimpression that by building fencing we would resolve our border security problem. I know of no 

fence built by the hand of man that could not be scaled, could not 

be tunneled under, could not be gone through, so that’s why I voted 

for it. I would note that despite those who criticize it today—and 

frankly, a lot of them are in my State along the border who don’t 

like the idea of fencing—there has been no attempt to try to repeal 

the fence requirement. 

For myself, I supported it because the Border Patrol told me they 

thought they needed it. Our professional law enforcement officials, 

if they tell me they need something, just like our troops in Iraq or 

Afghanistan, if they tell me they need something in order to do 

their job, then I’m going to support it. But I think it’s simplistic 

to think that, by building a fence, we’re going to solve all of our 

border security problems. 

You testified about the need for more Border Patrol. I’m glad to 

know that we’ve trained roughly 16,000. I would note there are 

40,000 police officers in New York, roughly, so we’re still lagging. 

I know it takes time but I think we’ve made some progress. Technology obviously is very important. You’ve talked a little bit about 

that. But I believe only a combination of boots on the ground, technology, and tactical infrastructure or fencing in hard-to-control 

places are we going to have an opportunity for success along the 

border. 

But I want to mention specifically your work in Hidalgo County 

and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. You were good to come down 

for a recent press conference and announcement where, as a result 

of the local consultation with officials in that area, we’ve been able 

to accomplish what I would not have believed possible—that is to 

take something as controversial as this Secure Fence Act and to 

come up with a win-win situation. As you know, that involves the 

dual use of the improved levee system, which is a Federal Government responsibility down in Hidalgo County. 

And let me just read a quotation to you from the county judge 

of Hidalgo County. He said, ‘‘Hidalgo County has been at the forefront of the border fence issue from day one, pushing our elected 

officials in Washington to listen to community concerns and formulating a strategy to protect the residents of Hidalgo County from 

floodwaters, while accomplishing the plans of the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security to protect our Nation’s borders. It’s a good 

day when Washington listens and responds to our needs. Hidalgo 

County appreciates the opportunity to continue consultations with 

DHS to make our community safer and more attractive to future 

smart development.’’ That’s a quote from County Judge J.D. Salinas of Hidalgo County, as you know. 

So, I applaud the work that you have done and that you’ve been 

willing to do to meet us half way. I would also note that there are 

other things that we’ve been working on with the Department of 

Homeland Security: carrizo cane eradication, which will enhance 

the natural barrier that the Rio Grande River presents. It will provide greater visibility and access for Border Patrol in the hard-tocontrol locations. 

36 

I think it’s a good example of how communication, cooperation, 

and consultation, particularly with those most immediately affected 

at the local level, can result in a positive outcome and one which, 

unfortunately, seems like it’s too rare these days. So, I think we 

ought to celebrate when they happen. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I want to thank you, Senator, and also Senator Hutchison and Congressman Cuellar for working with us and 

helping us, and really the community was tremendous about not 

just coming up with a proposal, but coming up with their resources 

to cover their part of it. It is a win-win where we can solve two 

problems with the same effort. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me just ask you, since time is running out, 

about the Meridia initiative. I realize this is perhaps, not strictly 

speaking, all in your bailiwick. But, of course, this is a proposal by 

the administration to provide $1.4 billion in funding to Mexico to 

help with security in the Southwest border area. No funds have 

been appropriated yet, though the Bush administration requests 

funding for both, in fiscal year 2008, the Global War on Terror 

Supplemental Funding request, and the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

I have heard from a number of my constituents, law enforcement 

personnel, sheriffs, and the like, who would like the Federal Government to provide them some assistance so they can do their job. 

I would note that Governor Perry and the Texas legislature have 

been fairly generous about stepping up to fill the gap along the border in terms of border security efforts. 

But, frankly, this is a Federal responsibility and some of my constituents, law enforcement personnel, are scratching their heads, 

wondering why the U.S. Government would give $1.4 billion to 

Mexico for its security efforts when it’s unwilling to fund, in a supplemental fashion, local law enforcement’s efforts to fill that gap 

while the Federal Government catches up. 

So I would just ask for you to work with us as this proceeds. I’m 

going to ask other cabinet secretaries, General Mukasey and others, for their cooperation because I think my constituents have got 

a very good point. We need to keep our commitments to law enforcement officials on this side of the border, while we also need 

to do everything we can to support President Calderon and his effort to combat the violence, particularly among the drug cartels in 

Mexico. But Texas law enforcement officials have a good point, and 

I’d like to work with you on that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree. If I could just address this for one 

moment. I know it’s a little over the time. But obviously we have 

money which we’ve made available for locals through Operation 

Stone Garden. This Meridia initiative is very important because 

the President of Mexico is putting enormous effort, at considerable 

risk, to tackling these drug gangs and these smuggling organizations which are located in Mexico. 

Of course, as you know from your experience with law enforcement, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the best way to strike at a 

criminal organization is not the tentacles, but the head. So we’ve 

got to enable the Mexicans to do their part in controlling criminal 

organizations that threaten their government and threaten us. I 

think this is a terribly important national security program for 

both countries. 

37 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I know we all are perhaps most 

focused on our own States, but have a national awareness of law 

enforcement challenges. But I will tell you that there is a huge 

problem along the border region because of the drug cartels battling it out, kidnappings, and assassinations of local law enforcement officials. 

Chairman LEAHY. I read some of the press accounts of that. It’s 

almost unbelievable in this day and age that such things go on. It’s 

a legitimate question you ask. It’s not being parochial at all when 

this is happening on your own border. 

Let me ask a question along that line on the northern border. 

We’re short on CBP agents along northern borders, especially 

States like my own Vermont. What steps are being taken to fill 

these staffing shortages along the northern border? In fact, we even 

have full staffing at all of our 325, 326 ports of entry. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If you look back over time, we’ve been 

steadily increasing the number of Customs and Border Protection 

officers at the northern border. This past year we added about 150 

additional officers, and we’ve got money in the 2008 and 2009 

budgets to increase the number of inspectors. We’re also going to 

move one of the unmanned aerial vehicles up to the northern border to patrol along there. I think by this summer we’ll have our 

fifth air wing up. 

Chairman LEAHY. In particular, what 100? Your target, the 

promised target is short about 100? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We’re at 3,396 officers currently, so I think 

we’d like to get somewhat more than that. But I think we’ve gone 

up in the last few years by about 1,000. 

Chairman LEAHY. When do you expect to have full staffing at all 

official ports of entry? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know the answer to that. I’ll have 

to get back to you. 

Chairman LEAHY. The reason I ask, is in your budget, you requested $4 million to install permanent Border Patrol checkpoints 

far, far from the border on Vermont highways. This was brought 

back to me yesterday when one of our veterans’ organizations, a 

man who lives up on the Canadian border, goes down to a VA hospital to help our veterans basically as a volunteer. He drives from 

the Canadian border, drives a couple hours and he gets stopped. 

This happened a number of times. He gets stopped at your border 

crossing on Interstate 91 in Vermont. He hasn’t crossed any borders. A lot of Vermonters suffer the same thing. Is there any—it 

seems like kind of a cockamamie thing. If you’re trying to catch immigration violators, how does this do it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Well, first of all, let me say, right now 

we’re using—we don’t have enough people up on the border. Right 

now, we’re using a temporary checkpoint. I don’t think there’s a— 

Chairman LEAHY. You’ve asked for $4 million to install a permanent checkpoint. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t think there’s a current plan to put 

a permanent checkpoint in that location. 

Chairman LEAHY. Then why did you ask for the money? 

38 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know whether this refers to this location or someplace else, but I’m told the Border Patrol, right now, 

is still envisioning operating temporarily. But let me make sure. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, they’re sure acting like it’s permanent. 

And not under your watch, but I told you about my own frustration, never leaving the country and being stopped hundreds of 

miles from the border. They made me step out of my car and prove 

my citizenship. The license plate, that’s No. 1, says ‘‘U.S. Senator’’ 

on it. It certainly has no influence, and I understand that. I 

shouldn’t be treated any differently than anybody else. 

But I also see Canadian families—you know, families—that are 

coming down there, coming down to visit our country, and they’re 

being made to take their suitcases out, children crying, everything 

else. It just seems like, my God, what are we doing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me—let me— 

Chairman LEAHY. Does this really make us safer? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The answer to that is yes, and I’m going to 

give you— 

Chairman LEAHY. Good. These families are certainly going to be 

encouraged to do everything they can to point out people that may 

hurt our country. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me give you facts and figures. In a 1- 

week period in November, 2007 when we had the checkpoint open 

in Swanton, we apprehended 23 illegal aliens. 

Chairman LEAHY. Swanton is on the border. I’m talking about 

something that’s about— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. But in the sector. 

Chairman LEAHY.—a 3-hour drive from the border. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. This I–91 temporary checkpoint, which is 

about 100 miles from the border, apprehended 23 people at the 

checkpoint. 

Chairman LEAHY. Apprehended for what? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I’ll go into some of the examples. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, give me the—how many of them were for 

immigration violations? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, there were 23 immigration violations 

and—and again, this is limited to a 1-week period— 

Chairman LEAHY. Had they crossed the border? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Pardon? Yes, they crossed the border. 

Chairman LEAHY. Then why weren’t they caught at the border? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Because— 

Chairman LEAHY. You all have people down at the other end. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Because we don’t necessarily get everybody 

at the border. As you know, sometimes people cross the border between the ports of entry, but they wind up funneling through the 

checkpoint and we pick them up at the checkpoint. 

Chairman LEAHY. So we’re stopping tens of thousands of 

Vermonters to get these handful? What happened to them? Were 

they then put in jail? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, they’re then deported. But let me— 

Chairman LEAHY. Every one of them was deported? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If they’re illegal, sure. 

Chairman LEAHY. So of those people—now, let’s be sure on this. 

Of those people you apprehended, you’re saying that most of them 

39 

were illegal immigrants. You apprehended in November, that 1 

month, and they were all deported? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There were 23 illegal immigrants who were 

apprehended at the checkpoint. 

Chairman LEAHY. In 1 month? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. In, actually, a 1-week period. 

Chairman LEAHY. One week. And every single one of them was 

deported? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, they’re supposed to be, unless they 

have a legal claim, like an asylum claim. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, can you give me those? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will get you— 

Chairman LEAHY. Because— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But, Mr. Chairman, let me finish. Because 

it’s not just illegal aliens. At various times at this particular checkpoint we arrested, for example, a native and citizen of Guatemala 

who had felony convictions for sexual assault of a child. We found 

a native and citizen of Canada at the checkpoint smuggling 95 

pounds of marijuana. We had an individual, a national of Guatemala and Canadian who we discovered was out on bond for aggravated sexual assault. We had a national of Korea who was transporting four illegal aliens. We had a citizen of Canada transporting 

150 pounds of marijuana. So, I mean, we are picking up drug dealers and other people at the checkpoints. 

Chairman LEAHY. But isn’t that something the State police 

should be doing, the sheriffs? I mean, I’m thinking if somebody 

really wanted to go down, it sounds to me like you’re getting the 

idiots, because there are dozens and dozens of roads you could go 

down if you really wanted to get down there. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have two short answers to that. One is, 

we do do side patrols. Second—and I know you know this, Mr. 

Chairman, because you were a U.S. Attorney—you do get idiots. 

Chairman LEAHY. I was a State’s Attorney. But go ahead. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But the truth of the matter is, it’s worth 

getting the idiots who are smuggling marijuana or who are child 

molesters. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That takes some of the— 

Chairman LEAHY. But if they don’t show up on the border where 

people should show up—because I noticed in your final rule that 

DHS and the State Department issued last week on WHTI, it dismissed all the comments calling for additional outreach of business, 

travelers, border residents. The Travel Industry Association, Travel 

Business Round Table, went so far as to say the new rules are not 

accompanied by a credible plan to inform travelers of changing requirements. I listen to radio stations out of Montreal saying, don’t 

go into Vermont or Upstate New York, the lines are an hour, 2 

hours, 3 hours long. Spend your money in Canada. We’re spending 

our money putting these checkpoints that really end up infuriating 

people 100 miles or more from the border. 

Tell me, let me just ask one more thing about that. We’re going 

to have additional staffing on Canadian holidays when the U.S. 

ports of entry have been particularly overwhelmed. We have May 

23, 24, 25 which is Victoria Day weekend holiday; June 24, St. 

40 

Jean Baptiste Day in Quebec; July 1, Canada Day; July 19, August 

3, construction holidays in Canada. We’re going to have extra—are 

we going to prepare for those? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, we do generally. 

Chairman LEAHY. Or does it only make a difference if it’s our 

holiday? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. We do generally actually mind any 

event, whether it’s a holiday or a sporting event. And, you know, 

my instruction and the Border Patrol’s undertaking has been to 

make sure we surge our capability when we think there’s going to 

be heavy travel because of some holiday or event. 

And I don’t want to be mistaking this suggestion as we don’t 

want to continue to hire. We did put money in the budget for 2009 

for additional inspectors. We—you know, my— 

Chairman LEAHY. You put money in the budget for a permanent 

checkpoint on Interstate 91. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, all I can tell you is, the current plan 

of the Border Patrol is to have—it’s temporary. But I—if you’re 

asking me whether I think checkpoints add value— 

Chairman LEAHY. It’s what your budget says. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I don’t have it in front of me so I 

don’t know what the thinking was. 

Chairman LEAHY. Four million dollars. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. They changed their thinking. Here’s the 

bottom line: having checkpoints does make sense. It is a useful 

tool. It’s not an alternative to manning the ports of entry, but it 

recognizes the fact that people come between the ports. 

Chairman LEAHY. So what you’re saying is, in a little State like 

mine, everybody should just be stopped going down the Interstate, 

no matter whether they’re going to visit a sick relative at the VA 

hospital or anything like that. We’re all sort of presumed guilty 

until we prove ourselves innocent? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I’m saying that— 

Chairman LEAHY. It sounds like Big Brother gone awry. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that—I mean, 

we have found drug smugglers, child molesters. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Secretary, we can—you can set up a road 

block on the George Washington Parkway and stop every single car 

coming in every single day. You’re going to find some. Does that 

make it a sensible thing to do? Everything would come to a 

screeching halt around here. You could put a road block halfway 

across the Wilson Bridge in this area. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I guess I’d answer you, Mr. Chairman, this 

way. Where I used to come from, from time to time, they manned 

roadblocks for drunk drivers. Now, the vast majority of people who 

were stopped were not intoxicated, but the fact is that they did 

catch people who were intoxicated. 

Chairman LEAHY. Those were temporary roadblocks. We’re talking about a permanent installation. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But what I’ve indicated to you is the Border 

Patrol’s current plan is to not operate it all the time. If the question is whether we ought to—how often we ought to do it or things 

of that sort, I mean, those are operational issues. If the question 

41 

is, as a matter of principle, does it make sense to have these 

things, I have to tell you that I think it does make sense. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, then we have hundreds of roads. I mean, 

we have dozens and dozens of roads you can take from the Canadian border to get down to either New York or Massachusetts from 

Canada. Why don’t you just put roadblocks on every one of them 

and Federalize Vermont? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we’re limited by law to the 100 miles 

closest to the border. We pick a place— 

Chairman LEAHY. You’ve got dozens of roads. I mean, I’ve got a 

dirt road that goes in front of my house in Middlesex, Vermont. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. Right. 

Chairman LEAHY. That’s within 100 miles of the Canadian border. Am I going to see a roadblock up there? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Now, we pick a road which the Border Patrol— 

Chairman LEAHY. Oh. Thank you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We pick a road which the Border Patrol 

thinks is likely to be a funnel through which people will come. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, we’ve had Canadians come up to my 

house in Vermont. Some of them are related to my wife. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, that’s great. But I’m not 

sure what your point is, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I think you understand my point. My time has 

really been used up and I’m going to yield to Senator Feingold. I 

just—well. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was enjoying the 

exchange. 

Mr. Secretary, you’ve had a long morning, so let me just get right 

to these questions. Thank you for your service. 

In February, the Washington Post reported that Customs agents 

have been searching the cell phones and laptops of U.S. citizens 

and international business travelers coming across the border and 

then copying the contents. In court papers, the government has 

taken the position that a laptop is just a ‘‘closed container’’ like a 

suitcase or a purse, and examining the contents of a laptop to learn 

the thoughts of the traveler is no different from examining a traveler’s suitcase to see if it contains drugs or a weapon. But the Supreme Court has held that more intrusive border searches that implicate ‘‘dignity and privacy interests of the person being searched’’ 

can take place only if there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. 

Has DHS conducted searches of the contents of laptops and cell 

phones belonging to U.S. citizens in cases where the Agency did not 

first determine that there was a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First of all, I think that the cases you’re 

talking about involving reasonable suspicion applies to body 

searches. I think the searches with respect to documents at the 

border, whether they’re reduced to paper form or electronic form, 

don’t necessarily require a reasonable suspicion requirement. 

We’re entitled to—I think copying requires a slightly higher requirement. So the short answer—but of course, as a matter of practice, we only do it where there’s a reasonable suspicion because we 

42 

don’t do it to everybody. So with that suggestion there’s a legal requirement, I think, that as a practical matter, when we look at a 

laptop or papers or something, it’s because somebody is in secondary, which means by definition that we have a reasonable suspicion that is sufficient to— 

Senator FEINGOLD. So even though you’re not required to use 

that standard, according to your statements, you are, in effect, 

using that standard? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think—I believe, in practice, that’s what’s 

happening. 

Senator FEINGOLD. In your view, if a person’s laptop contains 

diaries, personal letters, medical information, financial records, and 

photos, does a search of those contents by the government implicate any dignity or privacy concerns? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. From a legal standpoint, if you’re asking 

me do you need probable cause, the answer to that is no, at the 

border. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I didn’t ask you that. I asked you whether it 

implicates any dignity or privacy concerns. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. There are absolutely privacy concerns. Therefore, we only look to the extent necessary to satisfy 

ourselves, for example, that there’s not child pornography or, as 

we’ve occasionally found, instructions for how to build remote IEDs. 

But if, after looking at the material there’s nothing in there that 

is either contraband or indicative of a threat, then we respect the 

privacy and we return the item to the individual. 

Senator FEINGOLD. But does DHS ever copy or otherwise retain 

the contents of— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe we copy— 

Senator FEINGOLD. Let me just finish the question. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. OK. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Retain the contents of a person’s laptop during a search. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe that there are two types of things 

that happen. Sometimes if something is in a foreign language and 

needs to be translated or something of that sort, we make a copy 

for purposes of translation. If it turns out to be benign, we then destroy it. I think you understand that is probable cause. If we’re 

going to seize it because it is illegal—contraband, child pornography—I think at that point, I believe—I’ll verify it, but I believe— 

we use a probable cause standard. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And then what sorts of retention or destruction policies are in place for information that had been copied? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If it’s not pertinent to a violation of the 

law, in other words, benign, it’s destroyed. It’s either returned or 

it’s destroyed if we made a copy for purposes of, you know, translation. If it’s, in fact, contraband or part of a criminal case, then 

it gets retained, like any evidence would be when it’s seized, in accordance to law. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Accoring to the Washington Post, many of the 

people who have been subject to these searches are travelers of 

Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian background or descent, 

including U.S. citizens. Also, according to the Post, a Customs 

training guide states that ‘‘It is permissible and indeed advisable 

43 

to consider an individual’s connections to countries that are associated with significant terrorist activity.’’ I think the word ‘‘connections’’ is quite vague, but I assume that is deliberate. So let me ask 

you, if a U.S. citizen traveler is of Pakistani descent, does DHS 

consider that to constitute a ‘‘connection’’ to Pakistan, which is, of 

course, a country that is associated with significant terrorist activity? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I think the issue of connections to a nation have to do with foreigners. However, that doesn’t exclude the 

fact that if a person, a U.S. citizen, had a travel pattern that suggested, on an individualized basis, that they had something that 

needed to be looked at more closely, we would certainly take that 

into account. But the mere fact that someone is a U.S. citizen of 

any ethnic group is not a factor in— 

Senator FEINGOLD. So being Pakistani alone would not be a trigger? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If you are a Pakistani national, that might 

be a consideration, as with any foreign nationality. But that would 

be, for example, a citizen of another country. U.S. citizens are not 

treated differently based upon their ethnic background, but their 

individualized behavior could be a basis for singling them out, or 

if they matched a physical description it could be a basis for singling them out. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And you’re saying it’s narrowed to those circumstances? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, yes, that’s basically— 

Senator FEINGOLD. I would like whatever assurances you can 

provide that that’s the case, because I’ve heard horror stories that 

suggest otherwise, but I have not been able to personally document 

them. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That’s—I’m giving you—I’m telling you 

what the policy is. Can I tell you that no one has ever transgressed? I mean, my experience with law enforcement suggests 

that I wouldn’t be able to give you that assurance. But that’s the 

policy. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Another issue. The REAL ID regulations require that all REAL ID cards use the same type of machine-readable bar code to store personal information on those cards. That 

means that anyone who has a machine that can read that bar code 

can collect the personal information on REAL ID cards and log individuals’ activities. Sometimes this is called skimming. It means 

government or private entities can track Americans’ locations and 

activities over time. 

I think this is a significant privacy issue. I’ve heard concerns 

that all this information could even end up being for sale. Yet, the 

DHS regulations do not prohibit private sector use of this information or limit its use to law enforcement purposes. It just leaves it 

to the States to deal with the problem. Why is DHS not taking 

more proactive steps to address it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I disagree with the characterization of what 

you can do with a Machine Readable Zone. I think that’s dead 

wrong. I think there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Let me tell 

you what a Machine Readable Zone has. It has exactly the same 

information as on the face of the license, therefore you can either 

44 

read it with an MRZ read or you can read it with your eyes. You 

cannot skim a Machine Readable Zone because skimming, to the 

extent it occurs, requires an RFID chip, and a Machine Readable 

Zone is not an RFID chip. We are not requiring RFID chips. 

So there is no way you could track someone’s comings and goings 

with a driver’s license unless you followed them around, which you 

can do without the REAL ID. So I have to say the idea that—and 

I’ve read this over and over again, I’ve seen the ACLU say it, and 

it’s a blatant falsehood. It is not the case that the REAL ID license, 

without the RFID, can be used to track people. There is a way to 

track people. If I hacked into your credit card account, I could track 

you based on every time you use your credit card. But that has 

nothing to do with us. 

Senator FEINGOLD. You can track and record this much more 

easily than if it were not on a bar code. Isn’t that true? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I disagree with that. 

Senator FEINGOLD. You don’t think that’s true? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think that’s true. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, we’ll take this up on another occasion. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Secretary, it’s been a long day. I won’t go into questions on the— 

well, first, I should ask you, do you want to say anything further 

before I conclude? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I’m ready for lunch. 

Chairman LEAHY. You’ve had so much fun, you don’t want to 

continue? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It’s been fun, but all good things must come 

to an end. 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand. I hope the same about the per- manent $4 million installation on I–91. 

But moving along, I was going to ask you questions about extending EB–5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program that 

expires in September. I hope you will work with me to continue it 

beyond September. It’s an important program. All States can continue to benefit from the job creation and capital investment the 

program brings. At a time that we’re going into a recession, it’s 

good to have a program that actually does create jobs. 

As we get closer to the now-delayed implementation of WHTI, I 

hope the Department will listen to the warnings from those who 

live and work on our northern border: this must be done right. I 

can give you anecdotal stories, but you have to understand, this is 

the matter. Those of us along the northern border feel very strongly. It’s not a Democratic or Republican view, it’s the view of all of 

us, businesses that go back and forth, the travel industry, those 

who have families there, even to the extent of having to worry 

about one town where the border comes down the middle of the 

road. There are questions about whether somebody can cross the 

road to baby-sit their relatives’ children, things like this. 

Let’s do it right. Canada is a great country. We share a lot of our 

culture in comity with them. I would like to see more money spent 

to improve our intelligence on both sides of the border for those 

who are threats and who lose hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth 

45 

of jobs because we do something that may be more symbolic than 

substantive. I appreciate the fact, on a very newsworthy case, that 

you have acted upon that. I would hope that you would push back 

in your own Department to find out how many other cases that 

have not made the news, have not been researched by the Washington Post, doing the work that should have been done by somebody in DHS that’s looked at. I’d like to know what’s happening on 

the Katrina trailers, why we still have those that are harmful to 

people’s health long after that time. It’s been a terrible failure. 

I believe that the hundreds of thousands of legal, permanent 

residents who are in danger of not being naturalized in time to vote 

in November—Senator Kennedy used a figure of over half a million. I want them to know that they have a firm commitment from 

their Federal Government that there’s a reality of their applications being processed in time. Obviously, we all understand if you 

have somebody in there who’s made a false application or something, it won’t go through. 

But let us assume most of them are trying to follow the law. One 

of the greatest things, I know, when my grandparents told me after 

they became citizens in this country, having left Italy where they 

really didn’t have a chance to vote, how great it was to be able to 

vote. I suspect the same feeling is here, that these people want to 

vote. You’ve noted you had firsthand experience how important 

hard-fought, comprehensive immigration was. 

I sat in many of those meetings with you, as you know, Mr. Secretary. I also told the President I completely agreed with him on 

his effort for comprehensive immigration reform. I wish that it had 

gone through. But I think, in light of your unprecedented enforcement activities and these fee increases, we should have been better 

prepared for the huge increase in applications, better prepared to 

deal with it in a timely manner. 

Now, in answer to the question of Senator Feingold, you, I think, 

are down-playing some of the severity of the REAL ID mandate. I 

think it would be better to repeal that. It was put in with pressure 

from the administration. You speak of a congressional mandate, 

but that was slammed through on legislation that was called ‘‘must 

pass’’, with strong support from the administration. 

I think we ought to engage in a fair, more productive negotiated 

rulemaking with the States. It would be better than to override environmental laws, override States’ rights, and all these other 

things. Maybe people want to have a national ID card; in my State, 

they don’t. But maybe that’s what we’re coming to. I hope not. But 

before we tell the States, do it this way, do it our way or no way, 

and oh, by the way, increase your taxes so you can pay for this 

thing we’re mandating, I think there’s a better way, I really do. So, 

I’ll pass that on for what it’s worth. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond on the 

WHTI thing. I think we are as committed as you are to try to do 

this seamlessly. I think we have the capability to do it. I think now 

we’ve agreed upon a June, 2009 deadline. We’ve got the investments made in a number of States to do the driver’s licenses. The 

Canadians are now putting money into this. So I’m hopeful, if we 

can now have a unity of effort to get this done, we can wind up 

46 

in a little over a year with something that will not only be more 

secure, but actually is going to speed it up at the border. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, let’s talk about this driver’s license. Let 

me give you, a group of school kids come down on a school bus. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We’ve exempted them. We actually said 

that— 

Chairman LEAHY. What about the senior citizen who never got 

a driver’s license? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. You know, driver’s license—we’re accepting—a lot of States have a non-driver’s ID. We’re accepting that. 

I think what we have done, and this has been an iterative process 

with not only the States, but with the Provinces and with the Canadian government, I think we have a reasonable, practical, and 

relatively inexpensive plan. I come back to, you know, we had a 9/ 

11 Commission, we spent I don’t know how much money having 

them do their report. 

This is one of their top recommendations. I kind of committed to 

doing this. I think we’re doing it in the right way. I think that if 

we are consistent in our message, we’re going to get there and everyone is going to be better off. I think we’re going to make it 

quicker to cross the border because it will actually speed the time 

that every individual has to spend at a border post. 

So I think I’m with you in wanting to keep the open flow of trade 

and traffic. I just want to make sure we’re redeeming the promise 

we made on the 9/11 recommendation. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I expect we’ll have more conversations 

about this before we get there. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I’m sure we will. 

Chairman LEAHY. The legislation requires us to wait until July 

of 2009, with bipartisan legislation, as you know, the Leahy-Stevens legislation. We have many other Senators from both parties 

that co-sponsored. I also hope that someone’s looking at the situation, wearing my other hat as the Chairman of the Subcommittee 

that helps to fund the State Department, that we not end up with 

computers that cannot talk to each other. As you know, that was 

the original concern. It won’t do any good if you work out the 

WHTI problem and then they stop the second line and say, well, 

now, wait a minute. I don’t care what you went through there, now 

you’ve got to go through it all over again. 

I think we are citizens of a very great and wonderful country. A 

lot of people around the world think that we have suddenly become 

xenophobic, and almost arrogant in the way we treat people coming 

here. I have a lot of friends overseas who tell me, look, we’d love 

to go to the United States. Our euro is worth so much more because your dollar has slipped so badly. But we just don’t want to 

go through the hassle. We don’t want to be shouted at as we’re 

going through, treated like we’re some kind of criminals going 

through Immigration, going through—we finally get a mile away 

from wherever our port of entry, and everybody’s very, very nice. 

But we’re made to feel like some kind of criminals as we go 

through. 

I’ve seen this myself with the way people have been treated. If 

I’m recognized, everybody’s very nice to me. But that’s not the way 

it should be. They should also be nice to the person who’s coming 

47 

in from Italy, or Germany, or Ireland, or wherever else ahead of 

me. In fact, I think it’s even worse that they’re really giving somebody—just, frankly, berating them for maybe a bit of a language 

problem, berating them, and then all of a sudden being very nice 

to me. I think that’s even worse. So, I pass that on for what it’s 

worth. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Question and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

48 


45594.001
49 


45594.002
50 


45594.003
51 


45594.004
52 


45594.005
53 


45594.006
54 


45594.007
55 


45594.008
56 


45594.009
57 


45594.010
58 


45594.011
59 


45594.012
60 


45594.013
61 


45594.014
62 


45594.015
63 


45594.016
64 


45594.017
65 


45594.018
66 


45594.019
67 


45594.020
68 


45594.021
69 


45594.022
70 


45594.023
71 


45594.024
72 


45594.025
73 


45594.026
74 


45594.027
75 


45594.028
76 


45594.029
77 


45594.030
78 


45594.031
79 


45594.032
80 


45594.033
81 


45594.034
82 


45594.035
83 


45594.036
84 


45594.037
85 


45594.038
86 


45594.039
87 


45594.040
88 


45594.041
89 


45594.042
90 


45594.043
91 


45594.044
92 


45594.045
93 


45594.046
94 


45594.047
95 


45594.048
96 


45594.049
97 


45594.050
98 


45594.051
99 


45594.052
100 


45594.053
101 


45594.054
102 


45594.055
103 


45594.056
104 


45594.057
105 


45594.058
106 


45594.059
107 


45594.060
108 


45594.061
109 


45594.062
110 


45594.063
111 


45594.064
112 


45594.065
113 


45594.066
114 


45594.067
115 


45594.068
116 


45594.069
117 


45594.070
118 


45594.071
119 


45594.072
120 


45594.073
121 


45594.074
122 


45594.075
123 


45594.076
124 


45594.077
125 


45594.078
126 


45594.079
127 


45594.080
128 


45594.081
129 


45594.082
130 


45594.083
131 


45594.084
132 


45594.085
133 


45594.086
134 


45594.087
135 


45594.088
136 


45594.089
137 


45594.090
138 


45594.091
139 


45594.092
140 


45594.093
141 


45594.094
142 


45594.095
143 


45594.096
144 


45594.097
145 


45594.098
146 


45594.099
147 


45594.100
148 


45594.101
149 


45594.102
150 


45594.103
151 


45594.104
152 


45594.105
153 


45594.106
154 


45594.107
155 


45594.108
156 


45594.109
157 


45594.110
158 


45594.111
159 


45594.112
160 


45594.113
161 


45594.114
162 


45594.115
163 


45594.116
164 


45594.117
165 


45594.118
166 


45594.119
167 


45594.120
168 


45594.121
169 


45594.122
170 


45594.123
171 


45594.124
172 


45594.125
173 


45594.126
174 


45594.127
175 


45594.128
176 


45594.129
177 


45594.130
178 


45594.131
179 


45594.132
180 


45594.133
181 


45594.134
182 


45594.135
183 


45594.136
184 


45594.137
185 


45594.138
186 


45594.139
187 


45594.140
188 


45594.141
189 


45594.142
190 


45594.143
191 


45594.144
192 


45594.145
193 


45594.146
194 


45594.147
195 


45594.148
196 


45594.149
197 


45594.150
198 


45594.151
199 


45594.152
200 


45594.153
201 


45594.154
202 


45594.155
203 


45594.156
204 


45594.157
205 


45594.158
206 


45594.159
207 


45594.160
208 


45594.161
209 


45594.162
210 


45594.163
211 


45594.164
212 


45594.165
213 


45594.166
214 


45594.167
215 


45594.168
216 


45594.169
217 


45594.170
218 


45594.171
219 


45594.172
220 


45594.173
221 


45594.174
222 


45594.175
223 


45594.176
224 


45594.177
225 


45594.178
226 


45594.179
227 


45594.180
228 


45594.181
229 


45594.182
230 


45594.183
231 


45594.184
232 


45594.185
233 


45594.186
234 


45594.187
235 


45594.188
236 


45594.189
237 


45594.190
238 


45594.191
239 


45594.192
240 


45594.193
241 


45594.194
242 


45594.195
243 


45594.196
244 


45594.197
245 


45594.198
246 


45594.199
247 


45594.200
248 


45594.201
249 


45594.202
250 


45594.203
251 


45594.204
252 


45594.205
253 


45594.206
254 


45594.207
255 


45594.208
256 


45594.209
257 


45594.210
258 


45594.211
259 


45594.212
260 


45594.213
261 


45594.214
262 


45594.215
263 


45594.216
264 


45594.217
265 


45594.218
266 


45594.219
267 


45594.220
268 


45594.221
269 


45594.222
270 


45594.223
271 


45594.224
272 


45594.225
273 


45594.226
274 


45594.227
275 


45594.228
276 


45594.229
277 


45594.230
278 


45594.231
279 


45594.232
280 


45594.233
281 


45594.234
282 


45594.235
283 


45594.236
284 


45594.237
285 


45594.238
286 


45594.239
287 


45594.240
288 


45594.241
289 


45594.242
290 


45594.243
291 


45594.244
292 


45594.245
293 


45594.246
294 


45594.247
295 


45594.248
296 


45594.249
297 


45594.250
298 


45594.251
299 


45594.252
300 


45594.253
301 


45594.254
302 


45594.255
303 


45594.256
304 


45594.257
305 


45594.258
306 


45594.259
307 


45594.260
308 


45594.261
309 


45594.262
310 


45594.263
311 


45594.264
312 


45594.265
313 


45594.266
314 


45594.267
315 


45594.268
316 


45594.269
317 


45594.270
318 


45594.271
319 


45594.272
320 


45594.273
321 


45594.274
322 


45594.275
323 


45594.276
324 


45594.277
325 


45594.278
326 


45594.279
327 


45594.280
328 


45594.281
329 


45594.282
330 


45594.283
331 


45594.284
332 


45594.285
333 


45594.286
334 


45594.287
335 


45594.288
336 


45594.289
337 


45594.290
338 


45594.291
339 


45594.292
340 


45594.293
341 


45594.294
342 


45594.295
343 


45594.296
344 

Æ 


45594.297