Mfr Nara- T5- Ins- Cook Tom- 1-14-04- 00182

MEMORANDUM Event:

Interview of Tom Cook

Date: Thursday, January 14, 2004 Special Access Issues: None Prepared

by: Janice Kephart-Roberts

~I

FOR THE RECORD

t1PI<. 0 if/) ~m

®

Team Number: 5 (Border Security) Location:

9-11 Commission Office, GSA

Participants

- Non-Commission:

Tom Cook Peter Gregory, General counsel chief counsel Janice Kephart-Roberts, counsel

Participants

- Commission:

Bio. Thomas Acting Director of Office of Program and Regulatory Development in CIS. Since merger in March. Started as inspector, 80 as adjudicator, 82 as a staff office; 89 Cal Service Center as Deputy Director; 95 back to hdqtrs of naturalization branch; July 98 Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Adjudications and then following month Acting Ass't Comm'r for 3 years of Adjudications to DRS merger. ~didn't have a deputy so I did both functions. When we came over to DRS, still managing same office, but now Acting Director. When I was branch chief in naturalization and somewhat with Bill Yates, and some contact with Morrie, and blc high visibility, when first came to adjudications in July 98. The status of CIPRIS when I came in, we were working on design, and design approved by Comm'r and pilot going. Testing concepts and working with EDS, and meeting with CIA and FBI on coordination. Big issue was that was supposed to be fee funded and during that time taking money from Exams Fee Account to keep project going. Don't know why $800 mil not available. Around $1Omillion cost for pilot. Part of calculation of fee was to pay back that money to the account. Until got some Crime Bill money in 2001. View of the pilot and how well managed. Paul Arthur was tech manager. A lot of out of the box thinking in pilot and looked like it was being managed well by Berez and Arthur. Had constant conversation with persons above me about CIPRIS. I was managing other projects: large regulatory program and those regs tied to programs like adoption. Then I was in policy and program, and we put ideas into system. My immediate boss was Mike Cronin (had been Joe Greene), Ass't Comm'r for Inspections, and then acting assoc Comm'r Exams, and then we were continual state of reorganization. Policy & Planning run by Bach until 2000, during change of the administrations.

1

Bach's view ofCIPRIS. He wasn't sure it was the right approach to address the problem, and never shared another one with you. Bach's removal of Morrie. He said he didn't think Morrie was the right person to do it, and didn't have all understanding of the issues at all the different levels, didn't give any specifics or share any anecdotes with me. I said I don't have anyone else to do it, he's been doing it a long time and can we discuss it. He said we aren't going to discuss it, and that was that. Marlene Johnson ofNAFSA said she had concerns how the program would impact students coming to the US, and impact on trade, etc. Coming from his academic background, clear he had sympathies. I meet with her too several times with Victor Johnson in leg affairs. Soon after Istarted my job, I meet with her. Bach and Cronin there too, in conference room. Three meeting recall. $13 billion business and possible deterrent to coming to US for education and would hurt industry if program to draconian and shouldn't be overly burdensome to students, shouldn't delay getting here, and by making student pay the fee, student may go to another country. Complaining about $99 . fee. And Vic Johnson was NAFSA's leg affairs and open that they sought repeal. Never complained about Morrie in front of others. I know Morrie talked to her, but don't recall any conversation specifically. They were open that were going to lobby the Hill on this and we got petitions from Spencer Abraham and John Ashcroft, and repeal it. Marlene and Bob knew each other. ACE, Terry Hartle. He was very opposed to this and made heated and vocal statements against it. Said it wasn't a good idea, would hurt student industry, he wrote inflammatory statements. I never met with him. Bob would go NAFSA meetings nationals at this time, and Hartle would go to the NAFSAs. On gov't positions were. I never went to one, but Morrie went with Bach on these and so would Bob Bach. A lot of schools were concerned about tech availability and infrastructure costs. Exchange visitors also involved, organization involved in a lot schools. Hartle changed his tune post 9/11. Mary Ann Wyrsch. I met with her weekly every Wed moming at 8:30-9:00 early 1999, prior to Morrie being pulled, before he got pulled off the project, started when she was deputy and continued through acting. Purpose of meetings were to give updates on CIPRIS, on at least five regs, including the fee regs, sometimes would bring Paul Arthur and Mike Cronin, and even Bob came with me one time. The regs involved: (l)enrollment-2; (2) school approval certification process, 2 or 3; (3) section 214 eligibility factor such as transfers b/w schools; (4) fee regulation. Change of status would not be affected; that was in SEVIS. Couldn't start class until we approved the change of status. So back then a B2 could file for a change of status, and then go to school. IF violate status, ineligible for change. Doesn't recall the Atta situation. We discussed the tech plan with Mary Ann Wyrsch. Paul Arthur briefed her on several occasions on tech strategy was and Virginia McKeeney and John Smith even came to some of these meetings, so she was very aware of what was going on her. She was hands on, that she felt were critical, also RIB Jackie Bednarz and 1-90 renewal Cindy Gomez, she was hands on. Review Investment Board to present tech projects for review. Don't know why she thought ICPRIS was important, and felt a more project approach. We did

2

document the team proj ect when she wanted more information, which Morrie had done at a working level. She had a difficulties with our approach. We had an approach that .schools could take more responsibilities that. Statue says students should pay, and she wanted the student should pay before coming to the US, and that changed fee process overseas. The practical result was that this became more of a budget action, and should be paid for student fees, and set up in way only funding for fees. Because we had so much trouble having no money coming in, and when take stricter budget role, then questions was where funding going to come from. Not aware of meetings with Mary Ann and NAFSA, but Mocny, her ass't was at some of them. Closed out pilot in Sept. 99. Morrie was at the cusp of the national development project when he got pulled. After Morrie left, I did a lot of it, and Donna Krump helped me, and then we brought on Andrea Haynes, and she was selected Mike Cronin, and he asked for my concurrence. She worked for Mike. Had no background in CIPRIS. Mike's view of CIPRIS, he didn't get involved, he was acting in that role, was really in inspections, and he saw the position as temporary. I don't recall an expression of any strong feelings. Had concerns if a negative impact on the inspectors and not impose further requirements and time frames that would exacerbate the process. A few months lag time before she came on board. _ She didn't reach out to Morrie and I was asked to remove him from entire student program. Dr. Bach told me to take him off CIPRIS. I did that and left him on the regs. Bach told me in the hallway that Morrie's involved in the student program via the regs and! thought I told you to take him off entirely. I said yes sir. Paul Arthur was totally tech and couldn't have taken over the project; Morrie was lead manager b/c he was program and Paul totally the tech manager. Mary Ann expected managers to have full knowledge of their projects, so I would often speak to her alone. No Congressional money. No tech money allowed. We used exam fees account and Wyrsch comfortable with that use up to that point. Until we get the fee in, we will have to revisit budget for next fiscal year 2000 (year we got money from the crime bill), blc I had forward funded money for EDS, so even though she was uncomfortable, she didn't 'tell me I couldn't use monies I'd already obligated. I did that in 2000. We knew we had money thereafter. Biometric student card. We put before the policy council that the national development include the card. Policy Council deferred and never decided. Mary Ann said we weren't going to do the card blc of other tech issues, so when we went into SEVIS card not part of process. The other tech issues, SITD, looking at tech issues, Paul Rosenberg, and issues on what tech use on card. Our proposal that the data be in database and the card would access info and card would read it. She thought that may be viable for other programs and may not be pursing tech approp for long term. Recommednation was a more single documentation. I met with her only on CIPRIS on weekly basis. I NEVER talked to Ms. Meissner about the project. I know there were discussions on NAFSA side, should be money from gov't for project. I never briefed or met with Meissner on this project. At staff meetings, I

3

don't recall Meissner asking about it. She met with Marlene sometimes I know; Bob mentioned at one of our meetings that Marlene and some of other stakeholders had expressed concerns about how it would impact the academic community. So either DM was there or Bob talked to her about it; she met with Bob every morning. We didn't have a view on who collected the money. We just wanted it. When Morrie taken off, I lost a lot of the day to day oversight. We were on the brink of national development at the time I lost his management. I did my best with it. The progress slowed down but did move forward. There were approved project plans that progressed but didn't stop, but Morrie is a very aggressive manager and always on top of things. Don't know of other data elements dropped out. We approached it as a whole project, and over time had to break down into smaller parts to move forward piece by piece blc of cost. The $100 fee was limited by statute. Policy Council meeting. We discussed for a half hour, but not there when they made a decision. Sometimes they'd make a decision right away, sometimes defer. I never really heard back on this one, other than a vague deferral. CWFBI. After Morrie left, I know Morrie briefed the NSC earlier, and briefed Dick Clarke subsequently, and gave him a status update. I met with Dick Clarke with Mike Cronin, Brabara Stracht and myself. I recall we were giving him an update on the system, and he had previous knowledge of him, and he knew Morrie's name. I didn't tell him Morrie wasn't on him. He asked questions about data elements: he asked a lot about the input of the schools: what checks that the school info accurate and our validation of compliance procedures, and that time we didn't, and major courses of study and if we actually tracking classes taking. I told him we were tracking major and minor, but not specific classes. He seemed to think this was a CT tool, although he didn't say that, but his job title. Don't recall that the card came up. He asked for timetable for when up and running, and told him when we going to start beta tests. I was briefing primarily. He had a staff assistant that I don't recall specifically, but we continued thereafter. About 30 minutes. No other contact with Clarke ever. CIA. John Smith set up a briefing for them as a powerpoint: myself, John Smith and Paul , Athur, and implementation. They were interested in same things as Clarke. Their access to it was unclear about how it was going to be worked. Question was whether, in legal issues, what access could be given. FBI. Bob McGraw was the liaison and had access to our systems, so we didn't talk about having access, could that obvious, but we did brief, and Bob signed us up for us.

4

Contact with Cadman about development. Only on NSC briefing. I know he was interested in it blc overlapped his work, but never talked to him about it. Idea was that this was a benefits program, but that changed with patriot act when moved to enforcement. My view of the program was to control and monitor students so eligible students come and left on time. In 1983, we had an Iranian issue, and Libyan one in 75. So I saw this as a national security tool that would meet all kinds of ad hoc reports. So data capture an early and important role for it. The concept is very sound. Should be expanded to lang term nonimmigrants and employment. How SEVIS could be improved if there was a document students carried so could better track them in and out of schools that fed within SEVIS; random checks to determine compliance of schools; additional data elements, and should have that flexibility, and doesn't have that flexibility. That kind of flexibility was in CIPRlS for data elements, even if not for coursework. Out of CIPRlS plan, the inspector could access info with a .card and could record with the card. But SEVIS is interfacing with other systems, but accessing entry and departure through US VISIT. CIPRlS was really a standalone b/c nothing else like it at a time, and thus more flexible on its face. US Visit should help provide a border bio by interfacing with all the systems out there. Bach was opposed as a matter of policy. Never got into technicalities.

5