[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 6977-6980]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       FINGERPRINT COMPATIBILITY

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue which I 
have been working on for many years, regrettably, about how we control 
our borders. The issue is how we deal with terrorists or people with 
criminal intent or who have a history of criminal activity who threaten 
our Nation by coming into our country. Either way, these are 
individuals who really should not be coming into our country.
  Back in the nineties, as chairman and ranking member of the Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee, we began funding a major 
effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to organize its 
fingerprint database, called IAFIS. At the same time, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, now part of the Department of Homeland 
Security, was beginning to set up a fingerprint database for people 
coming into the country, called IDENT.
  The problem has arisen that these two fingerprint databases do not 
communicate with each other. This, of course, was a function of 
history. In the nineties when the FBI was setting up IAFIS, which has 
now grown to 44 million identifying fingerprint records, their purpose 
was to create a national repository of criminal fingerprint records to 
identify a person who committed a crime by their fingerprint match with 
the system and to assist local law enforcement efforts to do the same. 
It was a law enforcement tool.
  The INS, when it began its system in the nineties, was basically 
trying to find people who were illegally coming into the country or who 
had been deported and had criminal backgrounds. The purpose was also 
for law enforcement but a different type of law enforcement. They were 
not looking for people who actually committed a crime. They were 
looking for people coming into the country who should not be coming 
into the country because of their background.
  These two protocols were set up independent of each other. We noticed 
this in our committee in the late nineties

[[Page 6978]]

and directed the two organizations to integrate their fingerprint 
identification systems. This was done by the Commerce-Justice-State 
Subcommittee, which I and Senator Hollings chaired off and on during 
that period. We exchanged chairmanships, depending on the control of 
the Senate, but our policies were exactly the same.
  We directed in the late nineties that these two agencies begin to 
integrate their fingerprint databases. It was pretty obvious to me and 
Senator Hollings at that time that this was important not from a law 
enforcement standpoint, but from an antiterrorism standpoint, and that 
is what drew us in this direction.
  Regrettably, that was not accomplished. Today we are in a situation 
which is extraordinarily inappropriate and, to some degree, ironic if 
it were not so sad and unfortunate. And that is that the FBI is sitting 
over here with 44 million fingerprints of people we know have a 
background that required them to be fingerprinted and, therefore, maybe 
we have some issues with them. We know within that 44-million-person 
database there are at least 12,000 individuals who are identified as 
terrorists. We know the FBI has this IAFIS database which we have spent 
$1.1 billion--billion dollars--to put in place. Our committee has 
funded this over the years.
  It had some fits and starts. It took the FBI a while to get it going 
right but now they have it set up. Then we know Homeland Security, 
which has now taken over INS, has the IDENT Program, which is the 
baseline for something called the US VISIT Program, which is a 
fingerprint program, the purpose of which is to fingerprint people 
coming into the United States for identification and have a database of 
those people.
  What we also know is these two major fingerprint databases do not 
talk to each other. So if someone is coming into our country who is a 
terrorist with fingerprint records in the FBI's IAFIS database, and 
they are fingerprinted as they would be required to be to get a visa to 
come into this country, that fingerprint they had for the visa would 
not show up in the FBI database as a terrorist because the systems 
cannot communicate. The databases of IDENT and US VISIT, which is being 
set up, are not structured to communicate with the FBI database.
  In the late 1990s, as I mentioned, our committee directed these two 
databases start to be integrated and figure out some way to 
communicate. There was minor progress made in this effort, and a lot of 
money put into it, over $41 million. Yet the reorganization of the 
Homeland Security Department, which took INS out of the Justice 
Department, created an atmosphere which was not maybe so convivial to 
the two groups communicating with each other. Also, the INS has a 
different goal, which is to move people quickly through the 
fingerprinting process. Therefore, they only use as their 
fingerprinting system the fingerprints of two flat digital fingerprints 
of the index fingers. By using the 2-fingerprint system, they can move 
people through their identification process very quickly, and that is 
important at a border entry from the standpoint of making the border 
entries tolerable to individuals to go through. The INS therefore was 
not willing to go to a roll process of all 10 fingerprints, which would 
require a great deal more time. The FBI, however, because it is 
interested in a more intensive capacity to review the fingerprints, has 
something called rolled fingerprints of all 10 fingerprints.
  So today we still have 44 million fingerprints which have no 
relevance, for all intents and purposes, to who is coming in and who is 
leaving our country because DHS is only fingerprinting individuals in a 
manner which is not compatible with the 10-fingerprint procedure of the 
44-million-person database.
  Now some folks in the administration appear to be aware of this 
problem and are talking about it. There are a number of things that 
have been done, and I want to acknowledge them for having done some 
things. Every 2 weeks they are extracting certain fingerprint records 
from IAFIS to IDENT, including certain wanted individuals and potential 
terrorists. Those 12,000 terrorists I mentioned in IAFIS is now 
supposedly in the IDENT system and accessible to the US VISIT Program. 
There is an attempt to get NIST, which is the organization which has 
the capacity to technologically address this issue, to take a look at 
this issue to see if there is not some way to cross-reference these 
records. Even under the most optimistic game plan, however, it is now 
the position of the administration it will not be until 2008 that they 
are able to integrate IDENT and IAFIS, assuming they are able to 
integrate them at all. To make them compatible, most likely it will 
mean DHS will have to go from a 2-fingerprint system to an 8-
fingerprint system, digital flat fingerprints.
  We need to focus on this as a government. This is one of those 
situations where one learns about it and understands it and says, why 
is this happening?
  We understand the history of it. As I mentioned, the history is INS 
and FBI had different purposes for their fingerprint systems when they 
set up these two major databases. Those two purposes have been totally 
overshadowed and left in the wake as a result of September 11. The FBI 
no longer has as its primary function catching people after they commit 
a crime. The FBI's primary function now, although maybe they do not 
totally appreciate this, is they are supposed to catch people before 
they commit a terrorist act. They are supposed to be an intelligence 
agency. That is their primary purpose, to find out who is going to harm 
us and get to them before they get to us. They have this huge resource 
of 44 million fingerprints of people who are potential problems, and it 
should be a resource, but is instead just sitting there. If someone 
commits a bank robbery or a Federal crime, it is still a very 
functional database, but for the primary purpose of the FBI, which is 
intelligence in anticipation of terrorist threat, it is not very 
functional at all.
  Then there is the INS which set up the IDENT system under the theory 
that people were repeatedly entering the country illegally and in some 
cases after they had been deported and they wanted to get them out of 
the country or they wanted to know who they were. They did not see them 
as terrorists back in the 1990s. They set up a system to address that. 
Now they have such a system and they are adding to it the U.S. VISIT 
system. That system is set up in a manner which, yes, expedites people 
through our borders, which I appreciate is important, but, no, it does 
not tell anybody at DHS whether that person who just got through the 
border, having been fingerprinted with the two index fingers, is in the 
FBI database as a terrorist or a criminal, unless that name happens to 
have been moved over to IDENT as a result of basically a manual 
decision.
  We cannot afford that historic anomaly to continue. We cannot 
continue to have these two systems which do not communicate. It is my 
hope the administration, again working with the various technical 
experts who are out there--and I suspect they have to be independent of 
these two agencies because these two agencies have vested interests 
which cause them to dig in their heels on occasion--that somebody will 
sit down and say merge these databases and do it before 2008. I hope 
they will come up with some system which allows us to do that.
  As an appropriator, I know this is going to cost a lot of money. I 
suspect Senator Hollings would agree with me on this, and I know 
Senator Byrd would because it is a big issue for him and Senator 
Stevens too, who are the chairman and ranking member of the committee, 
I am willing to put in whatever money is necessary in order to 
accomplish this integration on a faster timeframe than 2008 because we 
need it done. I hope the administration will pursue this effort.
  Fingerprint compatibility is an issue that affects all Americans. It 
relates to counterterrorism and protecting our borders; ensuring that 
taxpayer resources are not squandered; and ensuring that Federal 
agencies actually work as a unified Government rather

[[Page 6979]]

than a set of fiefdoms. The issue is fingerprints how they are taken, 
processed, and accessed.
  The Department of Homeland Security, DHS, has started a new 
initiative, US VISIT, to better control who is coming into the country 
and tracking them once they have arrived. The plan calls for the 
collection of personal data, photos, and fingerprints by the Department 
of State at U.S. consular offices abroad and by the Department of 
Homeland Security at our ports of entry. The fingerprints taken will be 
2 ``flat'' fingerprints, a simple, one-touch of the index finger of 
each hand.
  Those 2 flat fingerprints, however, cannot be searched against the 44 
million contained in the FBI's national repository of fingerprints of 
terrorists, wanted individuals, and of convicted criminals. That is 
because the repository, known as IAFIS, contains 10 ``rolled'' 
fingerprints, a more complete capture of each finger.
  If the purpose of US VISIT is to better determine who should enter 
the country, what is more important than knowing if they are terrorists 
or criminals?
  This is not a new problem. For nearly 15 years, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, INS--now the Department of Homeland Security--
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, have been developing and 
operating separate and incompatible fingerprint-based identification 
systems. INS has IDENT, which takes 2 flat prints and was created to 
identify repeat immigration offenders and deported aliens who should be 
detained and prosecuted. FBI has IAFIS, which takes 10 rolled prints 
and was created to automate the FBI's paper-based fingerprint 
identification system of criminal records. Without integration if you 
check IDENT, you do not have access to the prints of all criminals. If 
you check IAFIS, you do not have access to immigration law violators.
  We raised this issue as early as 1999. In the fiscal year 2000 CJS 
appropriations conference report, we directed the Department of 
Justice, DOJ, to develop a plan to integrate the INS and FBI systems. 
Five years later, the effort ``remains years away'' according to a 
March 2004 report by the DOJ Inspector General.
  Each year, millions of aliens are apprehended trying to illegally 
enter the United States. Many are voluntarily returned to their country 
of origin without further action. Some, however, are detained for 
prosecution if suspected of: multiple illegal entries, a prior 
deportation, a current arrest warrant, an aggravated criminal record, 
or alien smuggling.
  Before IDENT, INS had difficulty verifying identities of the 
apprehended aliens. False names and spelling errors were common making 
it difficult to check for immigration or criminal histories. An 
automated fingerprint identification system was the obvious solution. 
It provided a faster, unique biological measurement for individuals. 
Funding was first provided to develop IDENT in fiscal year 1989.
  At about the same time, in 1990, the FBI began to overhaul its paper-
based fingerprint card system. The FBI had maintained a central 
repository of ten-prints of criminal offenders' fingerprints since the 
1920's. The FBI wanted a system that would allow for electronic 
searches for fingerprint matches against criminal histories, wanted 
individuals, as well as stolen articles, vehicles, guns, and license 
plates. Over $1.1 billion has been spent on building and maintaining 
IAFIS to date. IAFIS now contains over 44 million criminal records, 
including 12,000 terrorist records.
  From 1990-1994, INS and FBI discussed integrating their systems, but 
they had conflicting priorities and interests. INS focused on the need 
to process apprehended aliens quickly and therefore only wanted to take 
2 fingerprints. FBI wanted INS to take 10 fingerprints so they could 
match apprehended aliens against the ten fingerprint records in the law 
enforcement databases or latent fingerprints obtained at crime scenes.
  There were also capacity concerns. FBI did not know if their system 
would have the capacity to meet INS's high volume of fingerprints in a 
quick response time. FBI did not believe their system would be able to 
search and match 2 fingerprints against 10 fingerprints in a timely 
manner.
  By 1994, INS began proceeding with its separate system, IDENT. IDENT 
was developed to match 2 fingerprints of detained individuals against 
fingerprints in two IDENT databases: 1, apprehension database: includes 
each recorded apprehension of illegal border crossers; and 2, lookout 
database: contains information on deported and criminal aliens and 
therefore ten-print cards.
  Problems with IDENT quickly emerged. A March 1998 Inspector General 
report found INS was enrolling less than two-thirds of the aliens 
apprehended into the IDENT system; INS was only entering 41 percent of 
all aliens deported into the IDENT lookout database; the data entered 
into the system was of poor quality because employees did not have 
sufficient training.
  In 1999, the case of Rafael Resendez-Ramirez reemphasized the need 
for the integration of IDENT and IAFIS. Resendez-Ramirez was 
apprehended by INS for an immigration violation in June 1999 and was 
voluntarily returned to Mexico because INS was unaware that he was 
wanted for murder. Shortly after his voluntary return, he returned to 
Oregon and committed four more murders. Had IDENT been linked to IAFIS, 
immigration officials would have known Resendez-Ramirez was wanted for 
murder, had an extensive criminal history and prior deportation, and 
could have detained him for prosecution.
  That year, in the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the CJS 
Appropriations Subcommittee responded by directing DOJ to prepare a 
plan for the integration of IDENT and IAFIS databases and fingerprint 
systems.
  DOJ submitted a plan for integration in March 2000. The plan focused 
on conducting several studies to determine the impact, scope, and 
technology needed to integrate the two systems.
  Good news is the project has slowly moved forward.
  Records are now extracted from IAFIS and added to IDENT every 2 
weeks, including those of wanted persons likely to be picked up by 
immigration officials, birthplace outside of U.S. Over 140,000 wanted 
individuals have been downloaded into IDENT. There are, on average, 400 
hits per month, meaning 400 apprehended aliens have active wants or 
warrants for their arrest. There are also over 12,000 fingerprint 
records of known or suspected terrorists extracted from IAFIS and put 
into IDENT.
  A workstation has been developed and deployed to DHS field sites, 
border patrol stations and ports of entry, that has a ten print scanner 
that can capture ten rolled prints; and a computer that can 
simultaneously search IDENT and IAFIS and provide an integrated 
response from both systems.
  The CJS appropriations subcommittee provided $1 million in fiscal 
year 2003 for National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST, 
the Federal agency charged with establishing fingerprint standards, to 
research fingerprint search compatibility. Preliminary results show 8 
flat prints can be searched against 10 rolled prints with the same 
accuracy as 10 rolled prints, but the search takes 2-3 times longer. 
Compare that to 2 flat prints, in which case the search has an 
``unacceptable reduction in identification accuracy'' and takes 35 
times longer.
  The bad news: 5 years have passed and $41 million has been provided 
and the systems are still not integrated. Extracting a sampling of 
IAFIS information every 2 weeks is not enough.
  Wanted individuals who are apprehended by DHS could be mistakenly 
returned to their country of origin if their warrants are submitted to 
IAFIS during the 2 week lag time. DOJ and DHS claim they will begin to 
extract information daily, but it is unclear when, how and whether that 
can happen. Even daily extracts cannot substitute real-time information 
or full interoperability.
  The extracts do not include criminal histories. The need for criminal 
histories was made apparent in the 2002

[[Page 6980]]

case of Victor Manual Batres. In that case, Batres was deported 
following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Batres reentered, but 
information about his deportation was not known because the systems are 
not integrated, and he was voluntarily returned to Mexico. He illegally 
entered the country again, at which time he raped two nuns, resulting 
in the death of one of them. Had IDENT and IAFIS been integrated, the 
immigration officials would have had immediate access to Batres' 
deportation and criminal history, and could have detained him for 
prosecution, thereby saving lives. Reentry after deportation alone can 
carry up to 20 years imprisonment.
  Workstations are only a one way solution. Workstations give DHS 
access to IAFIS, but they do not give law enforcement access to 
immigration records. FBI and State and local law enforcement believe 
there are situations that require access to immigration records, such 
as: Fingerprints captured at a crime scene cannot be checked against 
immigration violators; and an individual can apply to a sensitive 
position, security at a nuclear power plant, and there is no way to 
verify his or her country of birth or immigration history.
  Workstations are only partially deployed. Two hundred and ninety-
three workstations have been deployed to only 115 DHS field sites, 
which means less than one-third of DHS' field sites have workstations. 
It is unclear whether there is a plan to deploy workstations at the 
remaining field sites.
  The administration has no timeline to move to capturing 8 flat 
prints. Eight flat prints would significantly improve the chances of 
interoperability.
  The bad news also is that any plans for integration have been delayed 
at least 2 years, with final deployment now not expected until August 
2008 due to fear that the Government could not absorb the impact of 
integration, the increases in detention, prosecution and imprisonment 
of aliens. There is no agreement between DOJ and DHS on how to 
collectively proceed with IDENT/IAFIS integration. Personnel and 
resources were diverted from IDENT/IAFIS integration to build US VISIT.
  Now, DHS is creating its new system, US VISIT, with the same traps as 
IDENT and then some. Problems are already apparent. US VISIT has not 
been fully defined. No policy has been identified for Mexico and Canada 
or the ``exit'' aspect of the program, for example, will U.S. citizens 
be checked every time they leave the country. US VISIT was built on 
IDENT because that was the only way DHS could meet its December 2003 
deadline to deploy the program. That means US VISIT continues to 
capture only 2 flat prints and is not interoperable with IAFIS. There 
has been no mention of whether and how IAFIS would access the US VISIT 
fingerprint records. It is unclear whether IDENT alone is robust enough 
to handle the additional workload that comes with US VISIT.
  The State Department, whose job it is to take the photos and 
fingerprints of visa applicants, appears to be on track to meet the 
October 26, 2004 deadline to enroll 2 flat prints of all visa 
applicants between the ages of 14 and 79 at all 211 posts. However, 
there has been some question regarding the quality of the fingerprint 
images the State Department is enrolling, which we are looking into.
  In summary, knowing the background of individuals entering the United 
States is our first line of defense against terrorism. We have spent 
hundreds of millions of dollars to build a criminal database, IAFIS, 
and should take full advantage of the information it contains. The 
administration should make the integration of IDENT and US VISIT with 
IAFIS a number one priority. These agencies must work together to 
determine what is needed to integrate these systems. The administration 
should submit a statement of policy and a plan, agreed to by FBI, DHS, 
and State, which provides the technology and funding requirements as 
well as a time line for integration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator for North Carolina.

                          ____________________