[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8130-S8131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTERSTATE IDENTIFICATION INDEX (III) COMPACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate passed, 
S.2294, the National Criminal History Access and Child Protection Act. 
I want to thank Senators Hatch, DeWine and Daschle for their strong 
support of this legislation to enact the Interstate Identification 
Index (III) Compact.
  This Compact is the product of a decade-long effort by federal and 
state law enforcement officials to establish a legal framework for the 
exchange of criminal history records for authorized noncriminal justice 
purposes, such as security clearances, employment or licensing 
background checks.
  Since 1924, the FBI has collected and maintained duplicate state and 
local fingerprint cards, along with arrest and disposition records. 
Today, the FBI has over 200 million fingerprint cards in its system. 
These FBI records are accessible to authorized government entities for 
both criminal and authorized noncriminal justice purposes.
  Maintaining duplicate files at the FBI is costly and leads to 
inaccuracies in the criminal history records, since follow-up 
disposition information from the States is often incomplete. Such a 
huge central database of routinely incomplete criminal history records 
raises significant privacy concerns.
  In addition, the FBI releases these records for noncriminal justice 
purposes (as authorized by Federal law), to State agencies upon 
request, even if the State from which the records originated or the 
receiving State more narrowly restricts the dissemination of such 
records for noncriminal justice purposes.
  The III Compact is an effort to get the FBI out of the business of 
holding a duplicate copy of every State and local criminal history 
record, and instead to keep those records at the State level. Once 
fully implemented, the FBI will only need to hold the Interstate 
Identification Index (III), consisting of the national fingerprint file 
and a pointer index to direct the requestor to the correct State 
records repository. The Compact would eliminate the necessity for 
duplicate records at the FBI for those States participating in the 
Compact. Eventually, when all the States become full participants in 
the Compact, the FBI s centralized files of state offender records will 
be discontinued and users of such records will obtain those records 
from the appropriate State s central repository (or from the FBI if the 
offender has a federal record).

[[Page S8131]]

  The Compact would establish both a framework for this cooperative 
exchange of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes, 
and create a Compact Council with representatives from the FBI and the 
States to monitor system operations and issue necessary rules and 
procedures for the integrity and accuracy of the records and compliance 
with privacy standards. Importantly, this Compact would not in any way 
expand or diminish noncriminal justice purposes for which criminal 
history records may be used under existing State or Federal law.
  Overall, I believe that the Compact would increase the accuracy, 
completeness and privacy protection for criminal history records.
  In addition, the Compact would result in important cost savings from 
establishing a decentralized system. Under the system envisioned by the 
Compact, the FBI would hold only an index and pointer to the records 
maintained at the originating State. The FBI would no longer have to 
maintain duplicate State records. Moreover, States would no longer have 
the burden and costs of submitting arrest fingerprints and charge/
disposition data to the FBI for all arrests. Instead, the State would 
only have to submit to the FBI the fingerprints and textual 
identification data for a person s first arrest.
  With this system, criminal history records would be more up-to-date, 
or complete, because a decentralized system will keep the records 
closer to their point of origin in State repositories, eliminating the 
need for the States to keep sending updated disposition information to 
the FBI. To ensure further accuracy, the Compact would require requests 
for criminal history checks for noncriminal justice purposes to be 
submitted with fingerprints or some other form of positive 
identification, to avoid mistaken release of records.
  Furthermore, under the Compact, the newly created Council must 
establish procedures to require that the most current records are 
requested and that when a new need arises, a new record check is 
conducted.
  Significantly, the newly created Council must establish privacy 
enhancing procedures to ensure that requested criminal history records 
are only used by authorized officials for authorized purposes. 
Furthermore, the Compact makes clear that only the FBI and authorized 
representatives from the State repository may have direct access to the 
FBI index. The Council must also ensure that only legally appropriate 
information is released and, specifically, that record entries that may 
not be used for noncriminal justice purposes are deleted from the 
response.
  Thus, while the Compact would require the release of arrest records 
to a requesting State, the Compact would also ensure that if 
disposition records are available that the complete record be released. 
Also, the Compact would require States receiving records under the 
Compact to ensure that the records are disseminated in compliance with 
the authorized uses in that State. Consequently, under the Compact, a 
State that receives arrest-only information would have to give effect 
to disposition-only policies in that State and not release that 
information for noncriminal justice purposes. Thus, in my view, the 
impact of the Compact for the privacy and accuracy of the records would 
be positive.
  I am pleased to have joined with Senators Hatch and DeWine to make a 
number of refinements to the Compact as transmitted by to us by the 
Administration. Specifically, we have worked to clarify that (1) the 
work of the Council includes establishing standards to protect the 
privacy of the records; (2) sealed criminal history records are not 
covered or subject to release for noncriminal justice purposes under 
the Compact; (3) the meetings of the Council are open to the public, 
and (4) the Council s decisions, rules and procedures are available for 
public inspection and copying and published in the Federal Register.
  Commissioner Walton of the Vermont Department of Public Safety 
supports this Compact. He hopes that passage of the Compact will 
encourage Vermont to become a full participant in III for both criminal 
and noncriminal justice purposes, so that Vermont can reap the benefits 
of cost savings and improved data quality. The Compact is also strongly 
supported by the FBI and SEARCH.
  We all have an interest in making sure that the criminal history 
records maintained by our law enforcement agencies at the local, State 
and Federal levels, are complete, accurate and accessible only to 
authorized personnel for legally authorized purposes. This Compact is a 
significant step in the process of achieving that goal.

                          ____________________