SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
59–934
1999
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 110 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996 AT LAND BORDERS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 23, 1998
Serial No. 129
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARY BONO, California
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
MARY BONO, California
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel
JIM WILON, Counsel
LAURA BAXTER, Counsel
MARTINA HONE, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
July 23, 1998
OPENING STATEMENT
Smith, Hon. Lamar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESSES
Brady, Donald, Vice President, Transcore, San Diego, CA
Braunscheidel, Anthony, Business Development Manager, Peace Bridge Authority, Buffalo, NY
Clark, Paul, Chief Scientist, Information Technology, DYNCORP
Cohen, Ann, Vice President, Government Services, EDS
Elias, Joseph, Program Manager, Calspan Operations, Buffalo, NY
Hrinyak, Michael, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Inspections, Immigration and Naturalization Service
O'Gorman, Joseph, National Team Leader for Land Border Passenger Processing, U.S. Customs Service
Mocny, Robert, Former SENTRI Team Leader, Immigration and Naturalization Service
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Brady, Donald, Vice President, Transcore, San Diego, CA: Prepared statement
Braunscheidel, Anthony, Business Development Manager, Peace Bridge Authority, Buffalo, NY: Prepared statement
Conyers, Hon. John Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan: Prepared statement
Cohen, Ann, Vice President, Government Services, EDS: Prepared statement
Elias, Joseph, Program Manager, Calspan Operations, Buffalo, NY: Prepared statement
Hrinyak, Michael, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Inspections, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement
O'Gorman, Joseph, National Team Leader for Land Border Passenger Processing, U.S. Customs Service: Prepared statement
Mocny, Robert, Former SENTRI Team Leader, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Prepared statement
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 110 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996 AT LAND BORDERS
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 9:47 a.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamar Smith, Elton Gallegly, William L. Jenkins, Edward A. Pease, Chris Cannon, Ed Bryant, James E. Rogan, Mary Bono, Melvin L. Watt, John Conyers, Jr., Charles E. Schumer, Howard L. Berman, Zoe Lofgren, and Robert Wexler.
Staff present: George Fishman, Chief Counsel; Laura Baxter, Counsel; Judy Kinott, Staff Assistant, and Stephanie Peters, Minority Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH
Mr. SMITH. We will now proceed to our hearing on alternative technologies for implementation of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The purpose of this hearing is to look into the technological options available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for implementing section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 at the land ports-of-entry. Section 110 requires that the INS implement an automated entry-exit control system for all aliens at all points of entry to the United States—air, land, sea—by October 1, 1998.
Section 110 was included in the 1996 Act because a comprehensive and efficient entry-exit system is vital for our national security. Without such a system, our government has no idea of who is coming to the United States and whether they leave when they are supposed to do so. It is particularly important that the United States protect its citizens from terrorism and drug smuggling.
Recently, terrorism and drug smuggling had illuminated the debate about entry-exit controls at America's borders. An open border is an open invitation to terrorists, drug smugglers, and illegal aliens. USA Today reported this week in a story about the northern border ''several recent arrests have brought home the possibility that terrorists are establishing themselves in Canada because of that government's easy-going attitude toward asylum then slipping into the U.S.A. And, although the northern boundary remains far less violent than the U.S.-Mexico border, there has been an upswing in alien smuggling and drug crimes. The border patrol apprehended almost twice as many illegal aliens in 1997 than in 1988, and marijuana confiscation jumped 87 percent just from 1996 to 1997.''
Americans and Canadians both have reason to be alarmed if they may become the victims of terrorism and drug crimes. The question is not whether we face a threat at our borders, but when tragedy may strike and what we're going to do about it. In addition to minimizing these threats, an entry-exit system is the only effective method available to combat visa overstaying.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Visa overstayers make up over 40 percent of our population of illegal aliens. Currently, there is no deterrent for overstayers because they know there is little likelihood the government will learn of the fact they have overstayed. Section 110 will correct these problems. I'm convinced that section 110 can be implemented in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on trade, tourism, or other legitimate traffic along our land borders. The technology to be discussed today, will provide the INS with the ability to quickly conduct inspections at land borders while maintaining the integrity of our country's immigration laws.
The use of technology at both entry and exit will both facilitate legitimate traffic and enhance our national security by aiding in the apprehension of criminals and terrorists as well as by deterring visa overstayers. Today, we will learn more about the technological options available to INS. In this information age, we need to insure that the INS implements section 110 in a forward-looking manner. At today's hearing, we will hear from some of the country's leading information technology companies, and some of the government agencies that use their technology.
By taking advantage of the expertise of today's witnesses, we will be able to better understand the different technologies that exist and how they could be used to implement section 110 at the land borders.
The gentlemen from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I'm perfectly happy to suspend while we have a reporting quorum here so we can get these bills reported, if you want to do that.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. That is a good suggestion.
Mr. CONYERS. That is an excellent suggestion.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from North Carolina would like to yield his time to the gentleman from Michigan——
Mr. WATT. Yes.
Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Mr. Conyers. And the gentleman is recognized for the purposes of making an opening statement.
Mr. WATT. I'd like to have him go first.
Mr. SMITH. I understand. I understand.
Mr. CONYERS. Is that because of my seniority or because of the power and persuasiveness of my statement?
Mr. WATT. It's because of the power and persuasiveness of your statement——[Laughter.]
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
your seniority, and the fact that you told me you needed to be somewhere else.——[Laughter.]
Mr. CONYERS. Okay.
Mr. WATT. All three things, not necessarily in that order.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay. All right. Okay, folks now, let's all have a good hearing here.
I'm the only member from the northern border States between Canada and the United States and I'm here to try to find out if there's any way we can make the technological options work. That's what the hearing is about. And what section 110 does is require entry and departure records for every alien who comes to the United States for a temporary purpose.
The U.S.'s trade with Canada is $355 billion, the largest exchange between any two countries on the planet earth. Now of that figure $57 billion worth of goods were traded with Michigan giving it a larger share of trade with Canada than any other State in our Union. And so, unless we can all come to an understanding that the implementation of section 110 can occur quickly, it's not hard to see what kind of trade implication could be jeopardized.
So, I want to hear the testimony on the technology options and I'm concerned as much as anybody here about the potential for the problems of drugs, number one, the scourge of our Nation. And I want to find out if there's any system that can be put in place in time for this law to go into effect.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We'll learn whether their feasibility studies determining whether such devices can perform these entry-exit checks in a sufficiently, proper manner. And so, there are some other things that I'll be watching for, but I just want to impress upon all of the members here that we've got to do these things in real time. This isn't a kind of a high-tech game that we see if it will work and keep your fingers crossed guys, and if we land, it will be really wonderful, and if we don't, we'll blow a major part of the economy. Oops! I'm sorry, that's the way it goes. It didn't do what they say it would.
So' I'll submit the rest of my statement and thank you for allowing me to go first.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires the INS to make entry and departure records for every alien who comes to the United States for a temporary purpose. No Member is more concerned about this issue than I am. We can see Windsor, Canada from my district. Last year U.S. trade with Canada was over 355 billion dollars making it the largest exchange between any two countries in the world. Of that figure 57 billion dollars worth of goods were traded with Michigan—giving it a larger share of trade with Canada than any other state. Unless we get a handle on the implementation of section I 10 quickly, I'm afraid much of this trade could be jeopardized.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today we are going to hear testimony on the technological options that are available to implement section 110. This will include such devices as smart cards, proximity cards, magnetic cards, electronic and radio frequency transponders and biometric systems. I am concerned about the potential for fraud and invasion of privacy that such devices create. How can an immigration officer be sure that a card is valid,, that the information on it is authentic, or that the alien
using it is the person to whom it was issued?
I am also concerned about the absence of feasibility studies for determining whether such devices will perform the entry-exit checks well enough to justify their use. I do not want to spend enormous amounts of money on this project only to discover that the system that has been selected won't perform the entry-exit checks effectively or in a reasonable amount of time or that it is prohibitively expensive to use.
In the absence of adequate feasibility studies, we have to anticipate a negative impact on the U.S. economy from additional delays and back-ups at already congested land and sea ports of entry when section I 10 is implemented. With billions of dollars in goods crossing our borders every day, this congestion could have a devastating impact on U.S. trade, discourage incoming tourism, and have a serious impact on U.S. jobs, communities, and the economy as a whole.
One supposed rationale for such a system is to curb the problem of visitors who overstay their visas, but at best it would just produce a data bank of nonimmigrant overstays. The system would not provide information about where 3 any aliens can be found when it is discovered that they overstayed their visits, and it wouldn't lead. to any apprehensions or removals.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The massive congestion problems would also discourage Canadians and Mexicans from coming to the U.S. border communities and contributing to the local economies. The long line-ups of idling car and trucks would also cause serious environmental problems for these communities.
So clearly section 110 poses some very serious risks to the U.S. in general and the State of Michigan in particular. In my view, it is preferable that we eliminate the dangerous section 110 requirement until we are sure that we have the technology to safely and efficiently implement a border check system. We should ''look before we leap.''
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
We do appreciate the presence of the ranking member of the full committee, too.
Mr. Gallegly, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I have nothing.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm actually very happy that we passed over myself and went to Mr. Conyers because I think the members of the committee and the public can start to see some of the serious issues that we are dealing with in this hearing.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Section 110 of the immigration law that we passed a couple of years ago requires the attorney general to develop an automated exit control system that will collect a record of departure of every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the records of aliens arriving in the United States and it requires to be done by October 1, of 1998. That's not very far away.
The problem is this: We have a process for checking everybody who comes across the southern border, the southwestern border of the United States, into the country. No such process exists on the Canadian border. So the very same issues that Mr. Conyers has described as being a problem on the Canadian border also exists on the Mexican border. And somehow or another, we have decided that, as a matter of immigration policy, we'll have a different set of rules for Canadians than we have for Mexicans—a very difficult issue. The trade issues are extremely important, but the policy issues and consistency issues are extremely important also. And if you close off one border and you deal with one border, experience is now showing that even if the assumptions you made that all of the problems with immigration were coming across only one of your borders, if you treat that border differently than you treat your other borders, then people will just go around and come in a different way.
The second issue is we have a visa-waiver pilot program that country's qualify for now based on whether they grant or deny visas. The percentage of grants and denials, an irrational basis when the objective ought to be to identify people who overstay their visas and don't return after they get a visa. That's who ought to be rewarded by getting into a waiver program.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, we need a system of checking-in's and -out's to determine who should, what countries, what to qualify to be in the visa-waiver program. Right now, we have essentially had a policy that European countries can kind of come in, but everybody else that don't kind of look ''American,'' so to speak, there's a whole different standard that is at place.
So there's some things here that we really need to be cognizant of as we approach this issue. And both the chairman and I have been saying all along a much more rational basis on which to have a visa-waiver pilot program is visa overstays, but if we can't measure visa overstays, then we can't have a system that has integrity. And the chairman and I have been saying that, in order to do that, we got to have consistent rules at the southern border, as well as at the northern border. And that's what this process is all about.
It is not designed to discriminate against Canada or Mexico, or favor Canada or Mexico. It's trying to get to a consistent set of procedures and rules that will allow people to come to the country and leave the country when they are supposed to because I will just tell you that right now our records suggests that there are at least 120,000 Canadians working illegally in the United States and not a single one of these people entered the country illegally. They just overstayed after they got here. And if that's not acceptable for Mexicans who enter the United States, then it can't be acceptable for Canadians who enter the United States. And we've got to have some rules that establish a level of consistency.
This is a very difficult issue. We need this hearing to prod the Attorney General to give us the current information on where we are on getting to a system, and maybe it will stimulate some other related debates also which need to be put on the top of the table and discussed in an open fashion.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Are there any other opening statements?
[No response.]
If not, we will welcome the first witness, Mr. Michael Hrinyak, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Inspections, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Mr. Hrinyak, if you will come forward? We're looking forward to your testimony.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, before he starts, could I ask unanimous consent? You've referenced a newspaper article in your opening statement and, in fairness, I have a copy of that newspaper article and a copy of a letter to the editor from the Canadian Ambassador, both of which I think ought to be made a part of the record, so that we get both sides of it.
Mr. SMITH. I agree, and without objection, both articles will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Hrinyak, if you will proceed.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information referred to follows:]
59934a.eps
59934b.eps
59934c.eps
| Canadian Embassy |
| 501 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW |
| Washington, DC, July 22, 1998 |
The Editor
USA Today
1000 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA
DEAR SIR/MADAM,
Your July 21 cover story, ''Northern Exposure; Crime finds home on U.S.-Canada border'' contains inaccuracies, misleading statements and allegations that are just ''dead wrong''.
The United States holds no monopoly on challenges at its borders by drug dealers, terrorists and illegal immigrants. Canada is every bit as concerned about the movement of illegal goods and people into Canada from the United States as the United States is about their movement into the U.S. from Canada.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to U.S. law enforcement sources, far more illegal drugs flow into Canada from the U.S. than the reverse. Terrorists also move in both directions. For example, your reference to the Hani Abdel Rahim Sayegh case makes no mention of the fact that he first arrived in North America at Boston's Logan airport, from which he proceeded to Canada and apprehension. And your discussion of Canada's refugee policy similarly ignores the fact that in 1997 32 per cent of refugee claimants in Canada entered via the United States.
Canada shares U.S. goals with respect to drug smuggling, terrorism and illegal immigration. Our two countries enjoy a truly exceptional level of cooperation in each of these areas. This is reflected in the fact that, through computer interfaces, law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border have immediate, direct and constant access to the criminal databases of their colleagues on the other side.
The entry-exit control system championed by Congressman Smith is not the answer. Such a system would be of no use in preventing the movement of terrorists or drug smugglers. It would neither improve the quantity nor the quality of the intelligence available on these people, nor would it help officials stop them at visa offices and border crossing points. It would not even be of any use in preventing the movement of illegal immigrants because it would only produce better statistics, not apprehensions and removals.
The answer is enhanced cooperation between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies in combatting the movement of illegal drugs and drug traffickers, terrorists and illegal immigrants in both directions. This is already happening. Attorney General Reno and Canada's Solicitor General and Minister for Citizenship and Immigration are working closely together, through mechanisms like the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum and by instructing their officials to move toward the implementation of a regional security concept.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The free movement of people, goods and services between our two countries is essential to the prosperity of both. Our bilateral trade now tops $1 billion a day and supports millions of jobs on both sides of the border. There is every reason to expect this dynamism to expand, but only if we take stock of the challenges our two countries face and create a truly efficient and secure border.
Yours sincerely,
| Raymond Chréftien, Ambassador |
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HRINYAK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INSPECTIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. HRINYAK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to testify on the progress the Immigration and Naturalization Service has made for developing the entry-exit control information system——
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Hrinyak, could you pull that microphone a little bit closer to you?
Mr. HRINYAK. A little closer?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. HRINYAK. Is this better? Can you hear me now?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. HRINYAK [continuing]. The information system as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. I will first describe the current inspection process and the technology employed to support that process. I will then discuss alternative technologies being explored to both improve the current process as well as those which INS believes may facilitate the automated collection of information as required by section 110.
As you may be aware, the administration has proposed that the current law be modified to eliminate the requirement for the establishment of an automated entry-exit control system for land borders and seaports, and instead require a study of the feasibility of implementing such a system at the land and sea borders.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the task before INS, and the technological challenge presented, it is important to understand the current environment and processes, both in terms of gross numbers, and how the processes are now structured.
In Fiscal Year 1997, approximately one-half billion entries were made into the United States. The vast majority of these entries were made at our land border ports-of-entry. Each of these entries is important to the traveler and to INS. Each inspection must be carried out in a rapid, professional manner.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For travelers in private vehicles, the inspection begins with the inspector entering the vehicle's license plate number into the Interagency Border Inspection System to determine if there are any agencies' lookout notices posted against the vehicle or the vehicle's owner of record. I should note that this differs from the process at airports where an individual's name is searched against IBIS. Once the computer check is completed, the inspecting officer will ask a brief series of questions to determine the applicant's citizenship, and if necessary, the purpose of trip, the anticipated length of stay in the United States, and whether there are any dutiable items to declare.
On the southern border, the inspecting officer will also ask the applicant, if he or she is an alien, for appropriate documentation. On the northern border, the inspecting officer may ask for documentation if it is not clear the alien is a Canadian citizen. At most locations, this entire process takes less than a minute. The only record of the inspection normally maintained is the IBIS system record. This record does not meet the requirements of section 110.
Travelers who enter on foot or by some other means where there is no vehicle license plate which can be used to query against the IBIS database undergo a simple, low-tech inspection. The inspecting officer will ask a series of questions to determine the admissibility of the applicant, and whether there are any dutiable items to declare. On the southern border, the inspecting officer will also review documentation of aliens seeking admission. Ordinarily, no record is made of the entry, and no computer databases are checked.
The INS has been exploring how technology can be applied to the inspection process both to better manage the movement of traffic at land borders and better determine who is admissible to the United States.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will try to keep my comments brief as I describe these initiatives.
SENTRI, the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection, SENTRI pilot, is a interagency initiative designed to facilitate the flow of traffic and trade while maintaining the integrity of the inspections process. Vehicles and the individuals who will use these vehicles are pre-screened and enrolled in the program by INS and the United States Customs Service.
When crossing the international border, they travel over a lane dedicated to their exclusive use. As these vehicles approach the border, an automated system reviews IBIS and other records relating to the vehicle and its occupant. Photographs of the participants associated with a particular vehicle are displayed on a screen and the officer may make a visual comparison of the vehicle's occupant and the pre-registered participant. To facilitate this record check, the vehicle is equipped with a transponder which transmits a unique signal to a receiver, which in turn initiates the record search. A record of the entry is also made automatically by the system. This record could be modified to meet the requirements of section 110.
INSPASS, the INS Passenger Accelerated Service System is a pilot program which was developed for deployment at airports to expedite the inspection of travelers. It is now being tested at Hildalgo, Texas. Like SENTRI, INSPASS provides an opportunity for those individuals who have been pre-screened and enrolled to take advantage of an alternative inspections process. INSPASS, however, differs in one significant way. A biometric, hand geometry, is recorded for each pre-screened enrollee and that biometric is verified upon every entry.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A typical INSPASS inspection takes less than 30 seconds. The system automatically records information regarding the entry and could be modified to meet the requirements of section 110.
Preliminary results from Hildalgo indicate the concept of an INSPASS-type automated inspection on the land border is sound. However, participation in this voluntary program has been disappointing. While the pilot is still being reviewed to determine why it has not been more widely accepted, it is believed that the additional time required to perform the individual IBIS record check and confirm the identity of the applicant through the biometric comparison offers no advantage to the traveler vis-a-vis the current process.
The Automated Permit Port process. To better address the needs of border crosses who live in remote locations where ports-of-entry may have limited hours of operation, INS developed the Automated Permit Port process. This process is being tested in Scobey, Montana. It relies on a pre-screened enrolled population of users and a biometric verification to confirm identity. In this instance, the biometric is voice recognition. If a match is made, the applicant is admitted without the intervention of an officer and record is made of the entry. The record could be modified to meet the requirements of section 110.
RVIS, another system being tested to better serve residents in remote locations where ports-of-entry may have limited hours of operation is the Remote Video Inspection System. This approach relies upon a group of video cameras and an interactive voice system to monitor an unstaffed location from a staffed location. During the test period, a pre-screened enrolled traveler may activate the system through the use of a PORTPASS card which is provided for them by INS. RVIS creates a record of the entry which could be modified to meet the requirements of section 110.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS has been actively exploring new technology to improve the current process. None of the alternatives approached was considered to fully meet the demands of section 110 on the land border where the need to continue to facilitate the movement of large numbers of a people across the border is a concern. All of these test programs have focused on small populations of self-selected, pre-enrolled travelers. Another concern was that many of the new processes being tested provide information regarding entry, but none of them have been used to gather information on departures. To gather better data, the Service determined the best approach would be to test selected technologies in a port-of-entry like setting under controlled circumstances and then use this data to simulate what would happen if the new process were to be implemented.
The test site chosen to examine additional technologies is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. And we have a picture there of what the mock port-of-entry in Glynco looks like. It essentially mimics a standard port-of-entry. A small one, but the essential features are the same.
[Photograph.]
The test will consist of a comparison of existing machine-readable documents and a new generation of documents with radio-frequency tagents not unlike the technology used for SENTRI. The objective of the test will be to gather reliable data on the speed and accuracy of information collection using alternative technologies and to determine whether routine checks against IBIS can be incorporated into the process.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS documents being tested have machine-readable zones, like many other documents, including U.S. and Canadian passports which frequent border crossers may carry. It is anticipated that very good information will be generated during the test to indicate how much additional time, if any, will be added to the inspection process if such documents were to be used in the future to meet the requirements of section 110.
In addition to looking at current machine-readable documents, two types of radio-frequency tagent enabled documents will be tested, with the difference in the two, essentially, being the range at which they can be read. The objective of this series of tests, like the first, will be to determine the speed and accuracy with which information can be collected.
The INS will also solicit public comments and suggestions regarding new technologies which might be used to meet the demands of section 110 through notices in the Federal Register and Commerce Business Daily.
The administration continues to move ahead to develop and entry-exit system as required by section 110, however, we do so with particular concern for the logistics and costs associated with modifying or rebuilding border ports-of-entry, and possible delays for the traveling public. These concerns have caused us to develop an approach which will enable us to test alternative technologies and to use computer simulation to project outcomes so we can better determine how to meet the requirements of section 110.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer questions.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hrinyak follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HRINYAK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INSPECTIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to testify on the progress the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has made towards developing the entry-exit control information system as required by Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). In particular I will be addressing the steps which the INS has made towards identifying appropriate technologies to employ in land border inspection settings. I will first describe the current inspection process and the technology employed to support that process. I will then discuss alternative technologies being explored to both improve the current process, as well as those which INS believes may facilitate the automated collection of the information required by Section 110.
As you may be aware, the Administration has proposed that the current law be modified to eliminate the requirement for the establishment of an automated entry-exit control system for land borders and seaports and instead require a study of the feasibility of implementing such a system at the land and sea borders. This would not delay the implementation of Section 110 at airports, where INS intents to continue working towards an entry-exit control system in a careful and deliberate manner.
THE CURRENT PROCESS
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the challenge before the INS, and the technological challenge presented, it is important to understand the current environment and processes, both in terms of gross numbers, and how the process is now structured. In fiscal year 1997 approximately 500,000,000 entries, yes, approximately one half billion, were made into the United States. The vast majority of these entries were made at our land border ports of entry, with 423,066,896 U.S. citizens, visitors, and business travelers entering, and departing, from the United States in fiscal year 1997. Roughly one third of these trips were made by citizens and the remainder by aliens (279,224,152). If we compare the entries made on the northern and southern land borders, approximately 72% of the entries were made at ports-of-entry on the southern land border or 304,381,632 entries and the remainder, 118,685,264, on the northern land border.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each of these entries is important to the traveler and to INS. Each inspection must be carried out in a rapid professional manner regardless of the means of travel, location, physical conditions, or time of day. The borders of the United States are always open to visitors and the INS must always be ready to welcome them.
For travelers in private vehicles such as cars, vans and the like, the inspection begins with the inspector entering the vehicle's license plate number into the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) to determine if there are any agencies' lookout notices posted against the vehicle or the vehicle's owner of record. I should note that this differs from the process at airports where an individual's name is searched against IBIS. Once the computer check is completed the inspecting officer will ask a brief series of questions to determine the applicants citizenship, and if necessary, purpose of the trip, anticipated length of stay in the United States and whether there are any dutiable items to declare. On the southern border the inspecting officer will ask the applicant, if he or she is an alien, for appropriate documentation. On the northern border the inspecting officer may ask for documentation if it is not clear that the alien is a Canadian citizen. If the inspecting officer determines the applicant is admissible the inspection then ends and the person is allowed to enter the United States. At most locations this entire process takes approximately a minute. The only record of the inspection normally maintained is the IBIS system record showing the date, time, lane number, inspector and license plate number. This record does not meet the requirements of Section 110 since it reflects only that a vehicle entered the United States and reveals nothing about the individuals who may have been in the vehicle.
At almost all land border locations, travelers who seek to enter on foot, or by bicycle, or bus, or by some other means where there is no vehicle license plate which can be used to query against the IBIS database, the inspection process is relatively simple, straight forward and low tech. The inspecting officer will ask a series of questions to determine the admissibility of the applicant, including citizenship, in the case of aliens, the purpose of the trip, and whether there are any dutiable items to declare. On the southern border the inspecting officer will also review documentation of aliens seeking admission. On the northern border, if the applicant indicates that he or she is not a U.S. or Canadian citizen, or if the inspector determines it is necessary to verify citizenship, documentation will be reviewed. If the inspecting officer determines the applicant is admissible the inspection then ends and the person is allowed to enter the United States. The entire process takes less than a minute. No record is made of the entry and no computer databases are checked.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TECHNOLOGY AND THE INSPECTION PROCESS
The INS has been exploring how technology can be applied to the inspection process both to better manage the movement of traffic at land borders and to better determine who is admissible to the United States. Many of these initiatives have been discussed before so I will try to keep my comments brief as I describe these initiatives, including the SENTRI project, and various alternative inspection systems including the INSPASS system and Automated Permit Port pilot.
SENTRI
The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) pilot program is an interagency initiative designed to facilitate the flow of traffic and trade while maintaining the integrity of the inspection process. Under this pilot, vehicles, and the individuals who will use the vehicles, are pre-screened and enrolled in the program by the INS and the United States Customs Service (USCS). When crossing the international border they then travel over a traffic lane dedicated to the exclusive use of the participants in the project. As these vehicles approach the border, an automated system reviews IBIS and other records relating to the vehicle and its occupants to ensure that they are enrolled in the program and have met the requirements for entry into the United States. Inspecting officers do not actively conduct an inspection of SENTRI participants on the primary lane; however, as part of the automated process the photographs of the participants associated with a particular vehicle are displayed on a screen and the officer may make a visual comparison of the vehicles occupants and the pre-registered participants. To facilitate this record review vehicles are equipped with a transponder which transmits a unique signal to a receiver, which in turn initiates the record search. A record of the entry is also made automatically by the system. This record could be modified to meet the requirements of Section 110.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
INSPASS
The INS Passenger Accelerated Service System (INSPASS) is a pilot program which was developed for deployment at airports to expedite the inspection of travelers. It is now being tested at Hildalgo, TX to determine whether it can accomplish the same objective in a land border environment. Like SENTRI, INSPASS provides an opportunity for those individuals who have been pre-screened and enrolled to take advantage of an alternative inspection process. INSPASS, however, differs in one significant way. A biometric, hand geometry, is recorded for each pre-screened enrollee and that biometric is verified upon each entry. This is accomplished when the applicant inserts his or her PORTPASS card, which has identifying data encoded, into a card reader and then places his or her hand on a hand geometry reader. An IBIS data base check is also initiated when the PORTPASS card is inserted into the reader. If both are positive, that is, if identity is confirmed through the biometric comparison and there is no adverse information regarding the applicant in IBIS, the inspection is completed automatically without the intervention of an inspecting officer. A typical INSPASS inspection takes less than 30 seconds. The system automatically records information regarding the entry and could be modified to meet the requirements of Section 110.
Preliminary results from the Hildalgo test indicate that the concept of an INSPASS type automated inspection on the land border is sound. The equipment has functioned as anticipated and response times are comparable to those at airport locations. Participation in this voluntary program, however, has been disappointing. While the pilot is still being reviewed to determine why it has not been more widely accepted it is believed that the additional time required to perform the individual IBIS record check and confirm the identity of the applicant through the biometric comparison off no advantage to the traveler vis-a-vis the current process.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APP
To better address the needs of border crosses who live in remote locations where ports-of-entry may have limited hours of operation the INS developed the Automated Permit Port (APP) process. This process is being tested in Scobey, MT and, like the INSPASS system, it relies on a pre-screened enrolled population of users and a biometric verification to confirm the identity of the applicant for admission. In this instance the biometric used is voice recognition. An enrolled applicant who seeks admission at Scobey after normal port hours enters a pre-assigned Personal Identification Number (PIN) into a kiosk at the port. This prompts the system to call up the individual's record. The applicant then recites a pre-determined phrase into a telephone receiver at the kiosk and the system compares the stored record and the phrase being recited to confirm identity. If a match is made the applicant is admitted without the intervention of an officer and a record is made of the entry. This record could be modified to meet the requirements of Section 110.
RVIS
Another system being tested to better serve residents in remote locations where port-of-entry may have limited hours of operation is the Remote Video Inspection System (RVIS). This approach relies upon a group of video cameras and an interactive voice system to monitor an unstaffed location from a staffed location. During the test period pre-screened enrolled travelers may activate the system through the use of a PORTPASS card which is provided to them by INS. This card is placed into a card reader which calls a record up on the system displaying the enrollees photographic image at the staffed monitoring location. The inspecting officer can then compare this to the live video image, ask questions if necessary, and view the car, its occupants and the contents of the car, and then admit the applicant. At some locations RVIS is being tested in conjunction with automated license plate readers which will perform an IBIS check while the inspector is viewing the video and alert the inspecting officer if there have been changes in the status of the applicant or concerns about the vehicle entered into the system since enrollment. RVIS creates a record of the entry which could be modified to meet the requirements of Section 110.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TECHNOLOGY AND SECTION 110
As can be seen, the INS has been actively exploring new technology to improve the current process. None of the alternatives approached was considered to fully meet the demands of Section 110 on the land border, where the need to continue to facilitate the movement across the border is always a concern. The information requirements of Section 110 only added a new dimension to our efforts for ongoing process improvement, one which has called for a new innovative approach. Another concern was that many of the new processes being tested provide information regarding entry but none of them have been used to gather information on departures. Additionally, all of these test programs have focused on small populations of self-selected pre-enrolled travelers. It is difficult to extrapolate from these groups to make decisions about how particular changes will affect all land border crosses. To gather better data the Service determined that the best approach would be to test selected technologies in a port-of entry like setting under controlled circumstances and then to use this data to simulate what would happen if the new processes were to be implemented as standard operating procedures on the northern and southern land borders.
The test site chosen to examine additional technologies is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA. Testing will occur during the summer and an analysis of the results, including computer simulations to project what would happen if the new processes were introduced, will be begin in September. The actual test will consist of a comparison of existing machine readable documents, including the INS issued border crossing card and permanent resident card, and a new generation of documents with radio-frequency tagents not unlike the technology used by SENTRI. The objective of the test will be to gather reliable data on the speed and accuracy of information collection using alternative technologies and to determine whether routine checks against IBIS can be incorporated into the process.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS documents being tested have machine readable zones, like many other documents, including U.S. and Canadian passports, which frequent border crossers may carry. These documents have generally not been ''read'' in land border settings during primary inspection; however, they are ''read'' in airport settings. It is anticipated that very good information will be generated during the test to indicate how much additional time, if any, will be added to the inspection process if such documents were to be used in the future to meet the requirements of Section 110.
In addition to looking at current machine readable documents, two types of radio- frequency tagent enabled documents will be tested, with the difference in the two essentially being the range at which they can be passively read. The objective of this series of tests, like the first, will be to determine the speed and accuracy with which information can be collected.
The results of these tests will permit the INS to better understand how collecting the information required by Section 110 will affect land border inspection processes, and most particularly the affect of any changes on estimated waiting times. This will be done through a series of computer simulations in which the data obtained during the tests at Glynco will be used by the INS to project the anticipated impact of the changed processes on waiting times, staffing and other areas of concern using a proven computer modeling tool - the same tool now used to project staffing needs at our ports-of-entry.
The INS will also solicit public comments and suggestions regarding new technologies which might be used to meet the demands of Section 110 through notices in the Federal Register and the Commerce Business Daily. If significantly new or different technologies or approaches are suggested they too will be tested at the Glynco facility.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At this time, INS has not determined the budget implications for full implementation of Section 110 at land, air, and sea ports-of-entry. In FY 1998, INS has invested $12.9 million for the entry-exit control system at 11 airports. In FY 1999, INS has requested an increase of $19.5 million for the automation and positions necessary for further expansion of this project to additional airline carriers and airports.
CONCLUSION
The Administration continues to move ahead to develop an entry-exit system as required by Section 110, however, we do so with particular concern for the logistics and costs associated with modifying or rebuilding land border ports-of-entry, and possible delays for the traveling public. These concerns have caused us to develop an approach which will enable us to test alternative technologies and to use computer simulation to project outcomes so that we can better determine how to meet the requirements of Section 110.
This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to respond to any questions which you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hrinyak.
First, let me compliment the INS. It seems to me that they are making a good-faith effort to try to experiment with various technologies in various locations. And it seems to me clear that we are making progress in our effort to both facilitate admissions and also aid law enforcement along the northern border. So I think that that is all encouraging.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You heard me say a few minutes ago that one of the concerns I have is the fact that both the amount of drugs seized on the northern border and the number of illegal aliens apprehended on the northern border has been increasing for obvious reasons, as we are more successful on the southern border, an open border is an open invitation to terrorists, and drug smugglers, and illegal aliens.
And let me also add that I had an unsolicited call from a friend of mine just this week—maybe it was the day before yesterday—who said she was coming back across our northern border in a rented car and was not asked for any documentation to prove who she was or why she was coming to the United States. And her concern was, ''I could have had a trunk full of drugs, and no one would have known.'' And I would assume that the Canadians, our friends to the north, would have the same concerns. And, in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there's more drugs going that way than the reverse.
So I assume it's of concern to citizens of both countries that we try to deter, whether it be drug smugglers, or illegal aliens, or terrorists, or whoever, are not coming for—legitimate reasons.
My question to you is how would the INS today be able to determine whether someone entering the country had a criminal background, or whether they were an illegal alien who had previously been deported, or whether they, in fact, were part of a drug cartel?
Mr. HRINYAK. As I noted in my testimony, on the land borders our primary look-out queries are based on license plates. That is——
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. So someone like I just described who called me this week who had a rented car, that wouldn't serve much of a purpose?
Mr. HRINYAK. That would not. That's why it's complemented by extensive training of inspectors. They are expected to ask a series of questions which would give them some foundation to make a decision as to whether the person was admissible or whether they should be referred to a secondary area for additional questions. In this instance, I don't know if the inspector was immediately convinced that your friend was a U.S. citizen or somebody else who did not require additional inspection. But we expect our inspectors to use training and experience to make determinations on admissibility—they're trained to follow a line of questioning and to make observation of the body movements, nervousness, other signs that would cause us to have a reason to continue the line of questioning.
Mr. SMITH. All of which is pretty subjective?
Mr. HRINYAK. To a large degree it is subjective, but it has a scientific foundation.
Mr. SMITH. As far as who you're looking for or mannerisms or whatever it might be?
Mr. HRINYAK. Signs of nervousness.
Mr. SMITH. I guess what I'm getting at, clearly, that is not as effective as what we do on our southern border, or if we were actually checking beyond just what someone looked like or their license plates.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. It's not as complete an inspection as an airport inspection or one along the southern border.
Mr. SMITH. You mentioned that the INS is testing what's called ''INSPASS'' in Hidalgo, Texas to determine whether it can actually expedite the inspection of travelers at land borders. The preliminary reports, as I understand it, are that it can, in fact, expedite the process at land borders. My question is when do you expect the INS to make its final determination and to come up with its conclusions in regard to the INSPASS system?
Mr. HRINYAK. We are looking at our results right now. We hope to have some—excuse me for a minute.
Mr. SMITH. Would you like a glass of water?
Mr. HRINYAK. I think I do need something. You'll have to forgive me. I've been trying to fight a summer cold for 2 weeks.
Mr. SMITH. Well, we appreciate all the more your being here.
Mr. HRINYAK. But we're looking at the Hidalgo pilot right now. We're hoping to complete our analysis by the end of this Fiscal Year. It's not that conceptually it doesn't work, it's that, as I noted, vis-a-vis the current process, even 30 seconds for a pedestrian, who in the past may have been inspected in 5 seconds appears to be too long. It's a voluntary program and that additional time is not a good selling point to our target population.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. And you also mentioned a while ago voluntary participation has not been what was expected either.
Let me make a last point and then turn to Mr. Watt. I know we're going to hear a little bit later from some of the next panelists, something that's very intriguing to me. My goal is, of course, not to impede trade or traffic, but beyond that I'd like to actually to see if there is a way to expedite it. And I'm not an expert on this subject, but I have been told that, I don't know whether it's called a ''smart card'' or something else right, but, for example, on the Canadian border, as I understand it, everybody is at least stopped momentarily and they're asked a couple of questions, ''Why are you coming?'' ''Are you a citizen?'' And that takes a little bit of time.
My understanding is that smart cards, or their equivalent today, have just in the last year or two been developed to the point where not only does someone not have to slow down to one or two miles an hour, they can now slow down to only 30 miles an hour. And it seems to me that allowing someone with a card on their windshield, for example, to pass a border checkpoint at 30 miles per hour is certainly quicker than stopping them and asking them a couple of questions.
So, again, my hope is that with the technology that's available, and that you're familiar with, I know that we can actually expedite the process too.
Do you want to comment on that?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. Yes, I do. As you're aware, and as I mentioned, we're using a radio frequency tag in our SENTRI program. The INS continues to explore all technological alternatives, including the smart card. It is one of the technologies we're looking at in Glynco, and we are not going to preclude at any point any technology or combination of technologies. We're encouraged by the potential but it's premature whether to say this is a solution. It may be part of the solution.
Mr. SMITH. As you just said, I, too, am encouraged by the potential because as I say I think we have the same goals which is a combination of law enforcement and also expediting the process too.
I mentioned a while ago about that one example that I gave where we could speed things up. Let me give you another example. I know that on our southern border, we have the border crossing cards. They're good for 10 years. My quick guess is that if you were to ask a citizen of Canada or a citizen of the United States if they'd be willing to go through the process of applying for some card that allowed them quicker admission than they currently have and it lasted for 10 years, and it might help deter the flow of drugs into their country, either the United States or Canada, that I think that 99 percent of our citizens that are civic-minded would be happy to go through that process. That's just a commentary.
Thank you, Mr. Hrinyak, for your testimony.
Mr. Watt is recognized. Oh, excuse me, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Smith. And thanks for letting me go first, Mel.
Mr. Chairman, just before we question our witness, they're going to be more hearings on this?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Conyers, none are scheduled at this point but it's entirely possible that we would have. Let me say that I'm hoping that the Senate will follow the lead of the House and postpone the implementation for 1 year which would give us time for additional hearings.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, I thought the Senate was postponing——[Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. Well, the House has passed a bill that did two things. One, it postponed the implementation for 1 year, but it also included the language that any system will not impede trade or traffic. So I do not think that, in my opinion, that we are ready to implement the system by October 1, but I think if we maintain a deadline and give ourselves another year to explore the technology that that will be beneficial. And during that time I wouldn't be at all surprised, and, in fact, I would expect that we would have another hearing.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay, well, that brings the cholesterol level down somewhat in the room. I'm happy to hear that. [Laughter.]
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The reason I raise this before questioning the witness is that if this is the only hearing we're going to hear, my dear chairman, we're hearing from the vendors of the technology which is wonderful.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Conyers, we will have another hearing.
Mr. CONYERS. Oh, now progress is noted. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. I expected to, but let me assure you I can't imagine that we wouldn't.
Mr. CONYERS. Because there are other people with technical expertise that want to weigh in on it besides the people that are selling us the product which I'm happy for. I congratulate them. I know they're great business people. They're technology experts like none we've ever seen before. I wish them well. But there are some other people that know about this subject. And I would like us not to prematurely close off the discussion before all of them have been heard. So now we've got an understanding.
Now, Mr. Hrinyak, we're not going to keep you long. What do you know about this technology really?
Mr. HRINYAK. Do you mean——
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I mean what do you know about this stuff?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. I know that it works at Otay Mesa SENTRI. It has speeded the flow of traffic. I know that the INSPASS process works in the airport setting, it has actually speeded the flow of traffic. I know that the land border setting is very different and it offers different challenges and that's why we are testing and examining.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, my friend the reason I ask that is that you haven't made any commitment as to the time that may be utilized, the money that maybe it cost, and I don't blame you. That's not critical. I can't do it either and I don't have anybody that can. So let's all be friends here. I don't know anything about the technology. Do you know that much about it? I mean could you take a test on this stuff?
Mr. HRINYAK. Unfortunately, I think I could. [Laughter.]
Mr. CONYERS. Well, then I think you should take a test on it, and since you think you could pass it, right? Okay, have you been to Glynco, Georgia?
Mr. HRINYAK. Yes.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay. You've been to Scobey, Montana?
Mr. HRINYAK. I went to the first site proposed, DelBonita, Montana. I haven't been to Scoby. And I worked with the technology at DelBonita. That was the original pilot site.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay, well, we've had a number of pages of testimony here. Let's get down to the issue. We need your—you represent the government like I do. We're not partial. We're trying to do the right thing for our people. Okay. What do you think we ought to do here? You heard Mr. Watt. He said, ''Look, we're trying to bring some order and rationality, some reasonable consistency into this system.'' Whose against that?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. I think the course that the Immigration Service has chosen, to go to Georgia and look at technology in a very objective way is the soundest course we can follow at this time.
Mr. CONYERS. You think we ought to take a look don't you, ourselves?
Mr. HRINYAK. We are taking a look.
Mr. CONYERS. No, us. We're the ones that are going to make the decision.
Mr. HRINYAK. I would invite you to come to Georgia. I would invite you or your staff to come to Georgia.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, I knew that invitation was coming forth any minute. Thank you very much. We ought to go see it shouldn't we?
Mr. HRINYAK. Yes.
Mr. CONYERS. Right. And you've invited us, haven't you?
Mr. HRINYAK. Yes.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CONYERS. Right. And I accept. Okay.
Mr. HRINYAK. Good.
Mr. CONYERS. And I'm going to try to get the chairman and my dear friend also for us to go down and take a look because that would help us make up our mind, wouldn't it?
Mr. HRINYAK. I believe that it would beneficial to all of us.
Mr. CONYERS. And then I could administer the test that I promised you a little bit better? Wouldn't I? [Laughter.]
Mr. HRINYAK. Yes.
Mr. CONYERS. Yes.
Mr. HRINYAK. You'd have a lot of good questions.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have acknowledged from the outset that I don't have the technological skill to evaluate the system so this hearing in that sense for me may be a misnomer to look at the technology. I'd like to deal with a couple of policy things that I need to sort through. You testified that the—I'm not sure exactly how you said it, so correct me if I'm wrong—that the administration is opposed to the establishment of an automated entry/exit control system. Is that what——
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. Yes, that's what I said.
Mr. WATT. At land borders. So I guess my first question, is the administration saying it's opposed to having a system of automated checking at this time, or is it opposed to the need for such a system?
Mr. HRINYAK. It is not a question of need. It's a question of feasibility.
Mr. WATT. Okay, and so——
Mr. HRINYAK. And how it could be done.
Mr. WATT [continuing]. It's a question of timing then. Does the administration believe that a system is needed at some point?
Mr. HRINYAK. A system would serve many purposes and if technology allows it to be implemented without causing harm to commerce and trade, it should be implemented.
Mr. WATT. What if it did cause harm to commerce and trade, how would, in the absence of some system for checking who comes in and who goes out, how would we control our borders?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. We would clearly face a greater challenge than we would have preferred facing, but I believe through alternate techniques, greater use of risk management, greater use of random intensive inspections of various travelers, we could develop more precise profiles and use those to at least minimize some of the problems. It would not be as inclusive as a global entry/exit system.
Mr. WATT. And you're saying that system would be preferable if there were a major impact on trade because you'd be making some trade-offs? I don't—understand, I'm not trying to box you in on this. I'm just trying to evaluate the difficulty of the issues that we're dealing with here. This is a very difficult issue because you're balancing trade, which needs to move quickly, against the integrity of our immigration system and who comes in and out of the country, which is a very important and valuable thing also I assume for both us and Canada and Mexico and any other country, I suppose.
Now, we've got that kind of set aside. Let me go to the second part of what the administration has said its position is, that it would like to have a feasibility study as opposed to an extension of the deadline. I take it those are the two alternatives. An extension of the deadline keeps the INS on task to do this at some point. A feasibility study determines that it is or is not feasible. How would you determine the feasibility if you were doing a feasibility study without actively moving toward a system of doing this and evaluating the alternatives? I guess what I'm trying to do is give you an opportunity to articulate why the administration's position of having a feasibility study as opposed to where we are now, which is having a deadline which the House bill extends for 1 year and probably a year from now will extend another year. Can you evaluate those two alternatives and make your case for why the administration's position is more rational than what we're doing?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. In our discussions with staff, particularly regarding the feasibility study, we've gone beyond our Glynco pilot and noted that it would be desirable for INS to pilot the most promising technologies at ports-of-entry. I think based on that we would have very good information, both from the administration's standpoint and for Congress to consider as to the true impacts, what this works, not in a laboratory setting, in the real world, and can address the very real issues you mentioned earlier, the same issues that we at INS have been dealing with. We are as concerned with the enforcement requirements as we are with trade and it's a very difficult balance. And we live in the port of entry, the border environment, probably more than just about any other group in government.
Mr. WATT. Let me stop you. How would you proceed differently if the legislation said we are authorizing a feasibility study with no deadline, as opposed to legislation which we currently have which says do this by 'X' date? How would you proceed differently? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Mr. HRINYAK. I think the greatest difference would be we can anticipate different technologies will become available, technologies we're not yet aware of, with no deadlines, with the deadlines we're restricted to the technologies that exist today. And those are the ones we'll have to use to make our decisions.
Mr. WATT. Now, I've got two more questions, Mr. Chairman, if you'll be patient with me because I'm leading to the ultimate question here. The intervening question is what are you going to do between now and either completion of the feasibility study or now and the deadline to control, to address the concerns of the integrity of the borders, both at the northern border and the southern border? And are you going to do anything differently at the northern border than you are at the southern border?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HRINYAK. Process improvement is an ongoing thing with INS, as you'll probably hear during our SENTRI presentation. That process is sound. It allows better enforcement and facilitation. We're going forward on both borders implementing that system. As we learn through our test of technologies what else is ripe for implementation, we will not wait. We will implement it.
Mr. WATT. But if you weren't working against a deadline, you just had a feasibility study, would you do more profiling in the interim?
Mr. HRINYAK. We might be forced to. I'm not quite certain how we'd proceed.
Mr. WATT. Isn't part of your profiling the appearance of people? Come on, be honest with me now. You're basically looking at people who are coming out of Canada who look ''more American.'' You're looking at folks who come out of Mexico who don't look ''European American.'' That's part of your profile isn't it?
Mr. HRINYAK. At least it's not part of my profile.
Mr. WATT. I mean that's why I get stopped in the airport more than my colleagues going through security, isn't that right?
Mr. HRINYAK. I hope not. I really hope not.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WATT. Well, I guarantee I do, but I'm just telling you the facts of life here. There are certain profiles and when I wear jeans I get stopped even more than I do when I have on a suit. That's what profiling is all about, isn't it? When I wear tennis shoes, I get stopped even more.
Mr. HRINYAK. Physical appearance, characteristics, nervousness, travel itinerary.
Mr. WATT. I don't think I'm any more nervous. I'm more relaxed when I have my jeans and tennis shoes on, believe me. [Laughter.]
It doesn't have to do with being nervous. I can tell you that for sure.
Mr. HRINYAK. It's a complex process and for poorly trained inspectors, less experienced inspectors, they may take short-cuts. We've never condoned short-cuts, but it does happen.
Mr. WATT. All right. Final point. The age-old question that they used to ask when we were moving toward equality, we're still asking that question. How long before we have a system that can do this, do what we say in the law we want done, which you say you don't want to have written into the law, you just rather have a feasibility study to determine whether it should be done? But assume now that we're going to keep the law like it is. We're going to extend it for a year. A year from now are we going to have to extend it again?
Mr. HRINYAK. I honestly can't answer that question.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WATT. Two years from now, are we going to have to extend it again?
Mr. HRINYAK. We're beginning our test in Georgia. That should give us some answers. They'll be completed in September, that should give us a better sense. What we're doing in the airport environment is very encouraging. I don't know how much of that is applicable yet to the land border, but I don't think it's an indefinite process. It's just that we haven't the information yet to determine the date certain where we can get there.
Mr. WATT. It's a very difficult issue, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. It is. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT. I hope that this hearing is helping people understand just how difficult it is.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Hrinyak, I trust you feel that the system would be implemented more quickly if there were a deadline rather than just leaving it up to the whim of the individuals as to when they might implement it?
Mr. HRINYAK. Can I decline to answer?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, you may. [Laughter.]
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You've endured some good questions but they were needed questions, and we appreciate your answers. Thank you very much.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. HRINYAK. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Oh, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent for a few more questions I'd like to ask?
Mr. SMITH. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. CONYERS. And I want to commend both my colleagues for asking the questions that are critical here to get to some deeper understanding about that matter. All of you supported my proposal to have a study for driving while black. We now need a study for crossing the border while black because that seems to be another problem that needs to be investigated. [Laughter.]
Mr. WATT. Kind of an unstated issue in this discussion.
Mr. CONYERS. Exactly right. And you've done a good job of bringing it forward and I'm grateful for that. And I want to commend you, Mr. Hrinyak, we sometimes get carried away at these hearings, but you're a person of integrity, and you're a senior member in the government, and you've studied these problems. You've answered us as carefully and honestly as you can. We don't know how long it will take either. You don't know. It would be great if we could find somebody that could give us a definitive answer about a technological problem in the future. There probably aren't many people that are around that could pipe up to respond to that kind of thing.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so, as the chairman has said, if we give a deadline, won't that force everybody to shape up? Well, that's great. The thing that bothers me is that it might force people to shape up and that would be a good result. But, you know, I've just come off 6 years chairing the Government Operations Committee, and I had everybody that makes military aircraft explain to me how they blew deadline after deadline, billions of dollars involved, they're making money, overruns, work day and night, guys, cost be damn. Hire everybody. And they missed the deadline every single time. Every single time. Good intentions.
We line them all up from the President down. They would explain how the unions screwed up. The labor force went south. The technology that they were getting provided, somebody blew it, the engineers. This, that, the sun wasn't in the right place. Everything went wrong. It wasn't their fault. They missed the deadline. Some of it had very serious military implications. So it's not a matter of me getting somebody up here to promise we can do this by—oh, not to worry. We had penalties written in so you'd lose big money if you blow it. They couldn't help it. It wasn't because they were sitting around saying, ''Oh, forget the Congress.'' They just couldn't do it. And so I'm pleased with your response because it helps us figure out what we're going to do here.
So we don't know if a year is enough. I'm happy that we got a year. The question is can we, even with a year delay, will we do this? And, by the way, what kind of feasibility studies have we had?
Mr. HRINYAK. By feasibility studies, what technologies are we looking at?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CONYERS. Technology feasibility.
Mr. HRINYAK. We're looking at the existing machine readable documents that are in circulation by the U.S. Government, or other government issued, and the sort of technology they use on the Dulles tollway, the radio frequency technology which we've used in SENTRI. We're looking at the sorts of technologies that eliminate paper and speed transactions.
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, in other words, getting to the bottom of this because the chairman has been very generous, we haven't done a full feasibility study yet have we?
Mr. HRINYAK. We've just begun our feasibility study.
Mr. CONYERS. Ahhh, okay. There hasn't been one small one done already, this, the big one is in progress now?
Mr. HRINYAK. It's in progress.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay, I'm feeling better and better. Last question, Mr. Chairman, now, will the system—the technology that we're going to have bragged on here later, will that system locate aliens who have overstayed their time?
Mr. HRINYAK. It will identify them on exit. There are also——
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, but that's not the question is it?
Mr. HRINYAK. It will also identify records that have been matched and by implication they've overstayed their time. We'll know there's an entry and no matching departure.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, how will that facilitate your organization in picking them up?
Mr. HRINYAK. That remains a challenge that we're struggling with.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. WATT. May I just ask one quick question?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, Mr. Watt?
Mr. WATT. The feasibility study that is being recommended, is a time frame associated with that recommendation, with the administration's recommendation?
Mr. HRINYAK. We anticipate very close to a full year because in addition to technologies, we're looking at each land border port of entry, the infrastructure, how that infrastructure might have to be modified.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WATT. I'm just trying to find out what will be the time. If we revised the language or statute to provide for a feasibility study, what would be the time we would put in the law applicable to the feasibility study? We may be playing semantics here. I'm just trying to figure out whether to accept your approach that feasibility study would be better than having a deadline for implementing what would be the time of the feasibility study.
Mr. HRINYAK. For those portions that relate purely to INS and to technology, probably a year. However, we'll have to work with the Department of Transportation and other entities, bridge and tunnel authorities, for pieces of that study. If they don't get us necessary information promptly, it may take longer.
Mr. WATT. And in the interim, same differential that you are currently applying at the southern border, entry wise and exit wise, I guess, would be still at play?
Mr. HRINYAK. You mean the differences in process on the two borders?
Mr. WATT. Yes.
Mr. HRINYAK. I can't speculate as to how processes will change as we look at different technologies. There may be some changes.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt. Mr. Hrinyak, thank you again. I appreciate your testimony today.
Mr. HRINYAK. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. And we will go to our second panel now. It consists of Ms. Ann Cohen, vice president, Government Services, EDS; Dr. Paul Clark, chief scientists, Information Technology, DynCorp; and Mr. Donald Brady, vice president, Transcore from San Diego, California.
We're going to begin with Dr. Paul Clark, who has a media presentation for us. Mr. Clark, do we need to turn out the lights or do anything to help you out? Oh, you have all that ready. I wonder if we should turn off the rest of the lights. I think we may need to, if that's possible. Let's turn them all off. I think folks in the audience will be able to better see as well.
Please proceed, Mr. Clark. We're going to need to get you a microphone I think.
STATEMENT OF PAUL CLARK, CHIEF SCIENTIST, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DYNCORP
Mr. CLARK. A couple of months ago you asked us to analyze the technical requirements for an automated entry/exit system which would provide levels of assurance in security, and what I'd like to do is provide an overview of the system as I've conceived it and then give you a demonstration of what some other agencies are currently doing in this area.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The requirements, as we see them, is basically first and foremost to provide reliable identification both for individuals entering and exiting the country and also officials seeking to access the information that's being stored. Within that framework, we need to provide secure entry and exit updates, both authenticated and also confidentiality protected; authorized access to individual status for officials; and then also automated alarm generation and notification for those who are overstaying their entry terms.
At a high level, the identification problem boils down to using one or more mechanisms which include the physical IDs which are what are currently being used; pins and passwords; biometrics also being deployed; and then more advanced challenge response type systems which provide things like digital signatures, things like these smart cards you alluded to earlier. Combinations of these mechanisms actually increase the assurance in the authentication of individuals and thereby give more reliable identification of those individuals.
Okay, for an entry/exit system, all we need to do is authenticate individuals and then provide real time notification to officials at the field sites as to whether or not they are overstayers, previous offenders, or current wanted individuals. This is a secure database submit, signed and encrypted, and followed by a secure notification, signed and optionally encrypted from the central database. To do a current status check, we need only retrieve records in an authorized fashion from that central database. This is a secure database retrieve for officials authorized to access that information.
To detect overstayers, we need only use the standard report generation capabilities available on most COTS, commercially available databases. These reports can be generated and automatically disseminated to authorized individuals or made available under secure access to those individuals in remote sites. One possible scenario would involve actually securely e-mailing to local sites a list of individuals who are overstaying.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To do this, we generally follow a comprehensive architectural approach which allows us to secure the data being transmitted against various threats, also protects the database servers through the use of commercial firewalls specially configured, and then smart cards to provide the cryptographic services and also for field officers who actually provide access to the local work station.
This is a system that we've done for the IRS, and I'm going to demonstrate right now, through the use of my wireless modem here, the ability to securely submit tax data to an actual IRS service center. Okay, so this is a standard web browser, with some add-in software that we make available for free. And I'm able to submit this form, and when I do, you'll be able to actually see the card being accessed over here if you look carefully. And we will digitally sign that form. We could optionally encrypt it as well. You'll see there that it's signed by me, Paul Clark. And now we'll submit it and I'm going to show you where the data is actually going.
I'm sitting here, connected by a wireless link, connected to our web server, submitted the data which is gatewayed out on to the actual Treasury communications system, going through our gateways to a gateway up at the IRS service center. It will decrypt and verify the signature and generate a digitally signed notification which it will send back through the gateway, through the web server to me and I will verify it. The plain text data will go to the legacy system which has no awareness of the security on the front end of this. The digitally-signed record is stored here in the archive, which for tax purposes allows us to prosecute fraud cases.
What I've just received back now is the receipt signed by the IRS service, and I'll go ahead and pull that up for you. What I got was from the EMS office, a message ID, a ''received-by'' with a date and time stamp by the gateway at the IRS service center. It recognized me as Paul Clark, and a status message that this has been accepted and forwarded.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, for a border crossing, what this would be then would be this individual is recognized as having come into the country, or this individual has overstayed their welcome on exit, and you'd be able to detect that in real time. You could also tell if they were a wanted felon for some reason, or if they posed a higher risk basically based on past offenses. So it allows more accurate profiling.
Mr. SMITH. I assume—if I may interrupt you—I assume you're saying that all this technology is currently available? This isn't in the future, this is in the present?
Mr. CLARK. No, this is deployed. I just went to an actual IRS service center. This is in response——
Mr. WATT. Is that real time?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, it just came back.
Mr. WATT. The response time?
Mr. CLARK. You just saw it. Actually, the bottle neck on this, you'll more accurately see the response times actually in the next demonstration which shows the retrieve. The Treasury system is actually a little bit of a bottle neck for the submission. It won't be involved in the next demonstration which is a secure retrieve and you'll be able to see what the response time is.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Clark, if you can conclude your presentation and go on to the next?
Mr. CLARK. Indeed. The system I'm going to demonstrate for the secure retrieve then is for one of our private clients which does a signed and encrypted request which is gatewayed to protected database servers behind firewalls. We will get a signature check to find out if I'm authorized to access the information. That signed and encrypted response will be pushed back down to the web browser. Again, this will be done wireless.
Okay, so based upon name, date of birth, and Social Security number, I'm going to retrieve security clearance information, again, using the smart card to sign and encrypt. Remember that's occurring here locally. The data is formatted and signed for the SAP server. So it has just been signed by me and encrypted for the SAP server. I'm going to submit that data. Remember it's being gatewayed through the firewall to the database server where we'll do the authorization check. So this is roughly a status check on an individual.
Here's the encrypted response that just came back. We'll verify that locally again using the smart card. So this was signed by the database server, encrypted for me, and there are the programs that I'm cleared for. Of course, this is a mock up.
Mr. SMITH. Okay.
Mr. CLARK. So we do secure/submit and secure/retrieve. And what that allows us to do with this comprehensive architecture is to utilize COTS based system, basically the client can choose the vendor and that provides inter-operability and reliability for those systems, as well as reducing costs. And then we would use multiple authentication mechanisms to include existing mechanisms as well as newer technology to provide authentication at a high level.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you, Mr. Clark. That's a very good presentation. And I'm glad you understand it. [Laughter.]
If we can turn the lights back on, and, Mr. Clark, if you'll return to the table and then we'll hear from our next two witnesses.
Mr. Watt was just making the comment that we just allowed somebody to come into the United States. Did we? Or exit or not? [Laughter.]
We'll resume with our second panel. Ms. Ann Cohen, vice president, Government Services, EDS.
STATEMENT OF ANN COHEN, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT SERVICES, EDS
Ms. COHEN. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss EDS's views on the technological feasibility of developing an automated entry-and-exit system to identify travelers who overstay. EDS has been the principal supplier of information technology services to the INS since 1994, so we have a unique perspective on some of the technologies being discussed. Our partnership with the INS has produced a number of award-winning technologies, but today I'm going to focus briefly on what technology have we put in place and to some extent that addresses the issue of overstays.
In answer to your question, yes, it is technically feasible to build an automated system to identify potential overstays. It will also be a challenge. The system represents a significant change for INS inspection processes, for the program, and the technical implications of new information systems, business processes and facilities are the kinds of things we look at with our testimony, excuse me, with our technology.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An important factor in the system design is how policy-makers make and implement statutory requirements. The first chart in my testimony is a graphical representation of the potential impact of these interpretations. It is not an exact scale but it shows the size, scale, and scope of the system will likely increase depending on how this legislation is interpreted. Does it on the one hand want to collect statistical information by nationality and traveler classification for the visa waiver pilot program or is it real time enforcement actions that we're talking about? The data storage, the processing, the implementation requirements for the system will determine the memory capabilities, the size and the scope of the system, and have an impact on what kind of system gets developed. Starting with a base of 350 million non-U.S. citizen travelers and a like number—records, excuse me, and like number of departure records annually, in its most basic interpretation, we're talking about the amount of data that is currently in the Library of Congress. It's a big database.
Tracking the departure process will be a new element, as Mr. Hrinyak discussed, because INS currently does not track departures. Consequently, from the departure standpoint telecommunication lines, business processes, and other processes will need to be put into place to meet the technological needs.
Finally, if the system has to have zero tolerance I believe we're talking about taking a biometric and capturing biometrics will have to be used. And this clearly will contribute to increased wait times if not from an enrollment standpoint.
We believe all these issues can be solved technically, and parts already have, but in some cases, I believe we are pushing the envelope and need to take a strong look. Section 110 requires us to think of the technical integration of all these different pieces that have been developed. Many of the award-winning technologies that we've developed form a foundation for what section 110 requires, but one of the things we've done with the automated I-94 process at airports is particularly appropriate here because it is the capture of automated arrival and departure information. And the system is premised on the partnership with airline carriers where they're taking certain information to complete the I-94 which significantly frees the INS inspector up to do the most important part of his or her job which is quality inspection. The I-94 is something in place today.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We're proud of these automated inspection programs but admittedly they only scratch the surface. We've touched, I think, 24 out of 300 plus ports-of-entry at this point, but the technology clearly could be expanded. But section 110 and chart 2 shows that the departure that we have in development for the INS weren't designed to address section 110 because it wasn't on the books at the time. But they do address arrival. They can be made to address departure. But they must be integrated into any comprehensive system, including a comprehensive database.
While many technical options exist, decisions regarding what level of detail must be collected will affect technology choices. The INS will look at selected technology solutions that minimize the burden on the traveling public but to achieve both will likely require some compromise we believe. Each of the environments presents a challenge but the land border, what you heard Mr. Hrinyak testifying about, presents the greatest challenge because that's the greatest amount of travelers. And right now, as you heard, in Glynco we are testing radio frequency technology and machine readable documents technology. We have various solutions at various points of entry, and we are working on the feasibility of them right now.
In conclusion, it is technically feasible. There are real technical challenges. The proper requirements definition, which is what we do for our business, proper technology requires that the existing environment and the statutory interpretation be clarified so that the technology can move forward.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I'd be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cohen follows:]
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF OF ANN COHEN, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT SERVICES, EDS
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good morning. I am Ann Cohen, EDS Vice President, Government Services Division. I want to thank you and your staff for the opportunity to be here today and for soliciting EDS' views on the technical feasibility of developing an automated entry exit control system to identify travelers that remain in the United States (U.S.) beyond the period authorized by the Attorney General and are otherwise know as ''overstays''.
EDS is a professional services company with 110,000 employees working across the United States and in 43 countries around the world. We have customers in a variety of industries, including banking, health care, manufacturing, transportation, retail, communications, and government.
In 1994, EDS entered into an Information Technology Partnership (ITP) with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to design, develop, and deploy new information technology systems as well as operate a number of legacy systems. We are pleased to report that EDS will continue to support the INS's technology initiatives under the Service Technology Alliance Resources (STARS) contract. The partnership, to date, has produced a number of award winning information systems, particularly in support of the Inspections' program. My testimony today will address (1) the technology associated with these award winning systems (2) whether it is technically feasible to build an arrival-departure information system to identify overstays without increasing current inspection process times, and (3) the specific components of such a system
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bottom line is that we believe it is technically feasible to build an automated entry exit control system to identify potential overstays.
It will, however, be a challenge because the system represents a significant change for the INS inspection program in terms of new information systems, business processes, and facilities. In addition to the business process and technical challenges, there are, of course, many policy changes associated with these challenges, such as requiring departure information to be collected from all non-citizen travelers; something that does not exist today. That alone will affect system requirements, development, and deployment and have an enormous impact on the business systems of INS today, the nature of the non-citizen travelers relationship with the U.S. border and other policy concerns which impact a technical approach.
The figure below, is a graphical representation of the potential impact of such decisions; it is not an exact scale.
59934c1.eps
Source: EDS
First, the size, scale, scope of the system(s) will likely increase by orders of magnitude depending upon whether the legislation is interpreted to require information, on the one hand, for statistical collection on possible overstays by nationality and traveler classification type or, on the other hand, pursue active, real-time enforcement actions against travelers who have overstayed their permitted time in the U.S.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, in either event, departure inspection facilities, communication lines, and new business processes must be established. Overstay records cannot be created if departure records are not collected. If active, real-time enforcement actions are considered, then the number and size of the departure facilities is likely to increase further still. Currently only air travelers, 13 percent of all non-citizen travelers, are subjected to any form of departure inspection and that is limited to statistical collection.
Finally, if the statute is interpreted to require highly reliable overstay information, i.e., zero tolerance for mismatched arrival and departure records, then it will likely required biometric technology. The use of biometrics will likely contribute to increased wait times for travelers entering the U.S. Of course any effort to collect departure records contributes to the time it takes to exit the U.S. since there is no nationwide outbound inspection or process for collecting departure records in effect today. Although the effort to obtain reliable arrival and departure information may only add a few seconds to the time it takes to process an individual traveler, the cumulative effect, given the numbers of non-citizen travelers, could be substantial. In addition to the increased wait time for inspection, most travelers, who do not currently have the machine readable documents necessary for an automated entry exit control system, must take a few seconds to provide additional information or pre-enroll in a system before arriving at the border, which would capture the information electronically.
Based on our experience, systems that must capture, match, and reconcile millions of information records annually require substantial business requirements analysis and ultimately long lead times and significant resources to develop.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BACKGROUND
As we understand it, the goal of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) is to enhance immigration enforcement and border security by ensuring that non-U.S. citizens leave the U.S. when required. Specifically, Section 110 requires the INS to develop an automated entry and exit control system which will:
match all individual alien departure records with arrival records by September 30, 1998;
submit periodic reports to Congress on nonimmigrant alien overstays by no later than December 31 of each year following the development of the system;
enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-line searches, lawfully admitted non-immigrants who overstay their authorized visit, and;
integrate overstay data into appropriate data bases of the INS and Department of State, including those at ports-of-entry and at consular offices.
According to INS, about 500 million U.S. citizens and non-citizens were admitted into the U.S. in fiscal year 1997. The INS estimates that as many as 70 percent or about 350 million of these travelers are non-citizens. These travelers enter through land, air, and sea ports of entry in varying numbers, as follows:
about 85 percent through land border ports of entry;
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
about 13 percent through air ports of entry, and;
about 2 percent through sea ports of entry.
Although it is the exception rather than the rule, it is important to note, travelers who enter through one port of entry may exit through any other port of entry. Thus, a traveler who arrives by air may exit by land or sea or vice versa.
Currently, the INS captures arrival and departure records on only 24 million or about 8 percent of all travelers entering the U.S.; most of these records are collected manually at international airports and are entered into the Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS). These records are used to produce overstay information for policy and law enforcement purposes. The INS uses confirmed overstay information for enforcement actions. When the INS determines that a nonimmigrant alien has overstayed his or her permitted time in the U.S., a record is created in the INS's lookout database for criminal aliens. These lookout records are used by Immigration inspectors as well as interior enforcement to identify nonimmigrant aliens that should be apprehended or removed from the U.S. Congress uses the overstay data to consider renewal of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP) or expansion of the program to other countries. As the subcommittee is aware, Congress began the VWPP about 10 years ago to ease the entry of nonimmigrant travelers from certain ''low risk'' countries.
Section 110's automated entry exit control system would need to capture about 700 million records—350 million arrival records and 350 million departure—records annually for non-citizen travelers. In other words, this system will be responsible for capturing, matching, and reconciling the entry and exit records for 92 percent of all the travelers who enter the U.S. and are not currently accounted for in the NIIS database. Assuming the historic growth rate of non-citizen travelers entering the U.S. remains constant at 5 percent per year, the system will exceed 1 billion records within 10 years.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ITP SUCCESS STORIES
Let me briefly share with you several of the award winning information systems EDS has developed to improve the control of our nation's borders and facilitate lawful entry into the United States. Most of these systems were not developed with Section 110 in mind; they do not currently collect entry and exit records in a central database.
Automated Inspections for Low-Risk, High Frequency Travelers
Over the past four years, we have worked with several teams of law enforcement experts from several Federal agencies, such as INS, the United States Customs Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and technology partners, such as Transcore, to develop innovative technology solutions to facilitate the entry of low-risk, high frequency travelers into the U.S. A key aspect of these systems is that the travelers voluntarily pre-enroll to participate. These solutions include:
Land: Secure Electronic Network for Traveler's Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) a 1996 Hammer Award winner. SENTRI is the world's first automated secure dedicated commuter lane. It uses magnetic strip card readers, radio transponders, automatic, digital license plate readers, electronic gates, tire shredders, and pop-up bollards to automatically identify the occupants of the vehicle and enable the vehicle to proceed through the lane in about 2 minutes whereas other travelers may wait as much as 30 minutes;
Air/Land:INS Passenger Accelerated Service System (INSPASS) is a 1997 recipient of the Federal Technology Leadership's Best of the Best award. Other countries including the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Israel and Bermuda, have already established a working group to develop similar systems. Canada, for example, has already begun testing a similar program called CANPASS It is a special kiosk which employs state-of-the-art hand biometric verification technology to validate the identity of about 80,000 pre-enrolled citizen and non-citizen travelers in as little as 11 seconds, whereas other travelers may have to wait as much as 45 minutes. and;
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Land/Sea:Remote Video Inspection System (RVIS) is a 1998 recipient of the Department of Justice's JustWorks award for improving service and justice to citizens. The system uses vehicle sensors, card readers, electronic gates, video cameras, and voice recognition technology that enable INS inspectors and/or U.S. Customs Officers at a staffed port of entry on the U.S.-Canadian border to inspect pre-enrolled travelers at remote facilities. The system enables travelers in remote locations to more easily cross the border where before they sometimes had to travel up to hundreds of miles out of their way to make a border crossing.
Pilot Automated System for Collecting Arrival and Departure Records
Air: In 1997, the INS partnered with U.S. Airways to pilot the I-94 Automation System at two air ports of entry and it is scheduled for expansion to other airline carriers and sites in FY98 and beyond. It was recently nominated for the 1998 Federal Technology Leadership Award. The I-94 pilot is the first successful effort to automate the capture of traveler information upon arrival and departure from the U.S. To date, the system has captured about 30,000 arrival and departure records, which represents a fraction of the arrival inspections that occur in the airport environment. Thus, while the system meets the requirements of Section 110 more needs to be done.
The system includes a unique software application with magnetic stripe technology currently used by the airline industry to produce machine-readable boarding passes and capture and store I–94 data. The results of the pilot test are very promising. The system reduces the data entry by travelers, speeds inspection processing time, improves the timeliness of data collection, increases the accuracy of the data completed, and enables inspectors to spend more time on quality inspections and less administrative time completing forms.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are proud of these system applications and the benefits they produce for the traveling public as well as U.S. border security. However, it is important to note that we have just begun to scratch the surface in terms of the benefit of these systems. Today, these automated systems are deployed at only about 25 of the 385 INS staffed air, land, and sea ports of entry and are responsible for a small percentage of the total volume of inspections that occur daily at all ports of entry nationwide.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
These success stories along with EDS' extensive experience in developing large data bases to collect, integrate, assimilate, catalog, and generate reports on vast amounts of information allows us to say with confidence that the arrival-departure system required by Section 110 is feasible from a technical perspective.
EDS has extensive experience in developing systems that match and reconcile large volumes of records daily. EDS' Financial Industry Group has developed large information systems, including mainframes with client server front ends for numerous banks and other financial institutions. As with the automated entry exit control system, these systems are required to match large batches of records—deposits and withdrawals—and generate monthly reports or statements for hundreds of thousands of customers. Other important modules of these systems, include exposure tracking and risk management.
It is also important to note that the U.S. is not alone in the world community in its effort to develop automated inspection systems to enhance border security and facilitate lawful entry. Singapore and Israel, for example, have developed automated systems. Singapore has developed a system that incorporates biometrics to facilitate the entry of day laborers from Malaysia. EDS recently installed automated inspection kiosks similar to the INSPASS kiosks at Israel's Ben Gurion airport. These kiosks are used to capture arrival and departure information while the system queries Israeli lookout databases for possible security threats. Additionally, the Israeli gove