98-89 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Immigration: Visa Entry/Exit Control System
Updated August 26, 1998
William J. Krouse
Analyst in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

ABSTRACT
Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(Division C of P.L. 104-208) requires the Attorney General to establish an automated
entry/exit control system to record non-citizen arrivals and departures at all ports of entry
by September 30, 1998. This report provides background and analysis on Section 110 and
issues related to increasing arrival/departure management at air, land, and sea ports of entry.
It will be updated as needed to track legislative action.

---

Immigration: Visa Entry/Exit Control System
Summary
Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; Division C of P.L. 104-208) mandates the development of an
automated entry/exit control system to create a record for every alien departing from
the United States and match it with the record for the alien arriving to the United
States. Section 110 also requires that this system identify nonimmigrants who
overstay the terms of their admission through online computer searching and that this
system be established at all international ports of entry by September 30, 1998.
Implementing Section 110 could prove more difficult at land border and
seaports of entry than at airports of entry, because the capacity to record alien arrivals
and departures at land border and seaports is not as fully developed. The
Administration proposed eliminating the FY1998 deadline all together for land
border and seaports of entry, citing the need to conduct feasibility and cost/benefit
studies. In addition, the Canadian government has expressed strong opposition to
implementation of Section 110 on the northern border, and other bills have been
introduced that would exempt Canadians outright from Section 110's requirement.
Nevertheless, it is currently unclear how Section 110 would change documentary
requirements for either Canadian or Mexican border crossers, because it is unclear
how the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) would implement Section 110
at land border ports of entry.
Congress has acted on several pieces of legislation that include provisions to
either modify or repeal Section 110. On November 10, 1997, the House passed H.R.
2920 to extend the FY1998 deadline to FY1999 for land border ports; however, the
House-passed bill leaves the FY1998 deadline in place for airports and seaports. The
Senate, on the other hand, has passed two separate measures. On July 23, 1998, the
Senate passed the Commerce, Justice, State (CJS), and the Judiciary Appropriations
Act for FY1999 (S. 2260); this measure includes a provision to repeal Section 110,
going farther than the Administration which proposed eliminating the FY1998
deadline for land border and seaports of entry. Then, on July 30, 1990, the Senate
passed another measure that does not go as far by amending H.R. 2920 with the text
of S. 1360. Among other things, this bill would exempt land border and seaports of
entry from Section 110's requirements, and would change the Section 110
implementation deadline for all air ports of entry to two years from the date of
enactment.
Finally, report language accompanying the House-passed FY1999 INS
appropriation earmarks an increase of $20 million to continue the development of a
Section 110 system. This earmark matches the Administration’s FY1999 budget
request that included $20 million to expand an automated entry/exit control pilot
program to three airports of entry. For FY1998, P.L. 105-119 provided the INS with
$13 million for the continued development of an automated entry/exit control system
as mandated in Section 110.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Arrival/Departure Management and Nonimmigrant Overstays . . . . . . . . . . 3
Arrival/Departure Management at Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Arrival/Departure Management at Seaports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Arrival/Departure Management at Land Border Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Northern Land Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Southern Land Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Land Border Automated Entry/Exit Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Current Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. FY1997 INS Inspections Land, Air & Sea Ports of Entry . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2. Estimated Nonimmigrant Overstay Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Immigration: Visa Entry/Exit Control System
Introduction
The Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Inspections program and the Department of the Treasury’s U.S. Customs Service
share jurisdiction over international ports of entry. The Customs Service is
responsible for clearing the entry of goods and merchandise into the country; INS is
responsible for managing the admission of both citizens and foreign nationals. At
many ports of entry, INS and Customs inspectors are cross-designated to enforce one
another’s respective areas of the law.1 Therefore, both INS and Customs inspectors
clear persons for entry into the United States. In FY1997, these agencies conducted
approximately one-half billion inspections. As illustrated in Figure 1, more than 416
million inspections are conducted at land border ports.
Section 110 of
Figure 1. FY1997 INS Inspections
Illegal Immigration
Land, Air & Sea Ports of Entry
Reform and Immigrant
(499 million inspections)
Responsibility Act
(Division C of P.L. 104-
Northern Land Border POEs
208) requires the
24.0%
Attorney General to
develop an automated
entry/exit control system
to create a record for
Sea POEs
Southern Land Border
1.9%
every alien departing
POEs
60.1%
from the United States
and match it with the
Air POEs
alien’s record of arrival.
13.9%
Section 110 also requires
that this system identify
CRS presentation of data provided by INS.
nonimmigrants who
overstay the terms of
their admission through online computer searching and that this system be
established at all international ports of entry by September 30, 1998. Implementing
Section 110 may prove more difficult at land border and seaports of entry than at
airports of entry, because the capacity to record alien arrivals and departures at land
border and seaports is not as fully developed.
The goal of Section 110 is greater immigration enforcement and border security
through better record keeping of the arrival and departure of non-citizens. INS does
1 This is the case generally at most land border and sea ports of entry; however, at most
major air ports of entry, INS and Customs inspections are conducted separately.

---

CRS-2
not currently track arrivals and departures for immigrants (non-citizens admitted for
permanent residence) and has had only limited success in tracking arrivals and
departures for nonimmigrants (non-citizens admitted on a temporary basis). An
automated entry/exit control system, when fully developed and implemented, would
provide a method by which to identify nonimmigrant overstays (those who violate
the period of their temporary admission). It would also provide an objective criterion
by which to extend visa waivers to other countries under the Visa Waiver Pilot
Program.2 In addition, Section 110 requires that the system capture the arrival and
departure of all aliens, including those admitted for permanent residence
(immigrants). Such information could be used to determine whether immigrants
have abandoned their U.S. residency. In some cases, those immigrants who have not
maintained their U.S. residency may be in jeopardy of losing their permanent resident
alien card. Such a system, if effectively linked to law enforcement databases, would
also serve as a means of screening aliens who may be subject to removal or exclusion
from the U.S.
In November 1997, before the Senate Judiciary’s Immigration Subcommittee,
INS outlined five strategic considerations that the agency viewed as essential to the
development of an automated entry/exit control.
! One, the system should be operational in all settings and would record alien
arrivals and departures into an online database (such a database does not
currently exist).
! Two, the system should not unduly increase the amount of time a person
spends in the inspection process.
! Three, INS must take full advantage of modern information management
technologies.
! Four, to minimize costs, the system should be grafted upon already existent
procedures and systems.
! And, five, because many parties, both public and private, have an interest in
facilitating international travel, stakeholder involvement is essential in crafting
a system that would provide “equal or better” service to “the traveling public,
trade and transportation interests, and the American people.”
The agency cited as a particular concern, “the logistics and costs of modifying and
rebuilding land and seaports of entry to accommodate an automated departure
management system.” For these reasons, INS also conveyed the Administration’s
proposal that the FY1998 deadline for an automated entry/exit control system at land
border and seaports of entry be eliminated. In July 1998, these concerns were
reiterated by INS in a hearing before the House Judiciary’s Immigration and Claims
Subcommittee. 3

2 The Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP) authorizes the Attorney General to waive the visa
documentary requirements for aliens traveling from certain designated countries as
temporary visitors for business or pleasure (tourists). Nationals from participating countries
simply complete an admission form before their arrival and are admitted for up to 90 days.
For further information, see CRS Report 97-309, Immigration: Visa Waiver Pilot Program.
3 The subject of this hearing was alternative technologies for the implementation of Section
110. Other witnesses, notably from industries involved in developing these technologies,

---

CRS-3
Arrival/Departure Management and Nonimmigrant Overstays
A principal focus of Section 110 is the enumeration and identification of
nonimmigrant overstays,
i.e., those persons who
Figure 2. Estimated Nonimmigrant Overstay
are admitted legally to
Population
the United States on a
(2.1 million as of October 1996)
temporary basis and
Central America & Carribean
Mexico
subsequently overstay the
20.6%
26.1%
terms of their admission.
In February 1997, INS
estimated the resident
Canada
illegal alien population at
Oceania
3.9%
0.7%
5 million persons as of
South America
7.3%
October 1996. That
7.7%
Stateless & Unknown
population was roughly
Africa
divided between illegal
Europe
5.6%
aliens who had entered
11.1%
Asia
without inspection (59%)
17.0%
and those who had
overstayed the terms of CRS presentation of estimates provided by INS Office of Policy and Planning.
t h e i r t e m p o r a r y
admission (41%). As illustrated in Figure 2, over half of the estimated 2.1 million
nonimmigrant overstays are from this hemisphere. Some observers have been critical
of INS enforcement efforts for being too heavily weighted towards stopping illegal
aliens who enter without inspection over those who overstay the terms of their
nonimmigrant admission.

INS currently tracks nonimmigrant arrivals and departures through the Form I-
94, the Arrival/Departure Record: the arrival portion of Form I-94 is collected upon
entry and the departure portion is collected upon exit. Arrivals and departures are
then keyed manually into the Nonimmigrant Information System — the current
system for managing approximately 25 million nonimmigrant files. For matched I-
94s, INS assumes the nonimmigrant departed; for unmatched I-94s, the agency
assumes they did not. Although nearly all nonimmigrants entering the U.S. at
airports and seaports (other than alien crewmembers) are required to fill out I-94s,
nonimmigrants entering the U.S. at land border ports are required to fill out I-94s
much less frequently. There have also been difficulties in collecting departure forms
from departing aliens. INS has been criticized, moreover, for not producing timely
and accurate data on nonimmigrant overstays from what data it does collect.
As a remedy, Section 110 requires an annual report to Congress that is to
include (1) the number of departure records collected, including the nationalities of
the departing aliens; (2) the number of departure records successfully matched with
prior arrival records, including the aliens’ nationalities and immigrant or
nonimmigrant classifications; and (3) the number, nationalities, and dates of arrival
of nonimmigrants who arrived in the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, for
were much more optimistic about the logistics of an automated system.

---

CRS-4
whom no corresponding departure record has been entered into the system and
matched with a corresponding arrival record, indicating that they have overstayed the
terms of their admission. Furthermore, Section 110 requires that nonimmigrant
overstay information gained through this system be incorporated into INS and State
Department immigration-related databases. INS currently captures the greatest
amount of arrival/departure data for nonimmigrants at airports.
Arrival/Departure Management at Airports
There are nearly 133 international airports of entry and 15 preinspection stations
on foreign territory. In FY1997, INS and USCS inspectors conducted nearly 69
million inspections (almost 14% of total inspections, as Figure 1 illustrates) at
airports of entry. At airports of entry, inspectors enter the names of all persons,
citizen and non-citizen, into the InterAgency Border Inspection System (IBIS)4 to
clear them for entry into the U.S. In addition, air carriers are required by law to
present properly completed I-94s to an immigration officer for all nonimmigrants
arriving and departing the country.
For nonimmigrants, INS has recently conducted a pilot program with
USAirways on the Munich, Germany to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania flight in which
I-94 arrival/departure records were captured electronically and uploaded into the
Nonimmigrant Information System. So far, the results of this pilot program have
been favorable. INS testified that based on the Philadelphia pilot program and other
available technologies, a preliminary entry/exit control system could be established
at major airports of entry by the end of FY1998, but such a system would still be in
a developmental stage. According to INS, entry/exit records would be captured by
scanning machine readable passports, reentry permits, legal permanent resident cards,
and other immigration-related documentation. Indeed, machine readable documents,
whether I-94s, passports, permanent resident cards (green cards), or border crossing
cards, are an integral component of an automated entry/exit control system.
The Administration’s FY1999 budget request includes $20 million to expand
the automated entry/exit control pilot program to three airports of entry. For
FY1998, P.L. 105-119 provided INS with $13 million for the continued development
of an automated entry/exit control system as mandated in Section 110.
Arrival/Departure Management at Seaports
In FY1997, INS and Customs inspectors conducted approximately 10 million
inspections at 70 seaports of entry (2% of total FY1997 inspections), but this number
does not accurately reflect the total number of non-citizens entering the U.S. on an
annual basis through seaports of entry. For example, alien crewmembers are often
only inspected once every 90 days under current law as their vessels travel along
coastlines or criss-cross international waterways. Passengers on cruise lines,
moreover, may debark and embark many times onto U.S. territory, but generally are
only inspected at the outset and end of a cruise. Whether alien crewmembers and
4 IBIS is a multi-agency centralized lookout database that is linked to a number of
immigration and law enforcement databases.

---

CRS-5
cruise line passengers make up a large enough component of the undocumented
immigrant population to warrant the additional inspections and an entry/exit control
system at seaports, or whether congress should exempt seaports from the
implementation of Section 110 remains a question.
Arrival/Departure Management at Land Border Ports
Many people who cross the land border frequently reside in the region.
Therefore, in the past, documenting inspections at land border ports have not been
conducted with the same level of intensity as at airports. At land border ports,
inspectors visually screen applicants for admission in the primary inspection lanes.
As the vehicle approaches the inspections booth, the inspector usually enters the
automobile license plate number into IBIS to check whether there is a lookout record
on it. If there is a record, the vehicle is detoured into secondary inspection for further
examination. In addition, the inspector queries the vehicle’s occupants for
documentation, intended destination, and length of stay. If in the inspector’s
judgement no further examination is warranted, the vehicle and its occupants are
waved through.
In FY1997, INS and Customs inspectors conducted nearly 416 million land
border inspections: 297 million inspections on our southern land border and nearly
119 million on our northern land border (see Figure 1). There are 107 land border
ports of entry on the 4,780 mile long border between Canada and the lower 48 states.
There are 37 land border ports of entry on 1,952 mile long border between Mexico
and the U.S. On both borders, the ratio of citizens to non-citizens inspected is
estimated at roughly 1:2.
Northern Land Border. The Canadian government has expressed strong
opposition to the implementation of Section 110 on the northern land border, as have
some northern border congressional delegations. Canadians who enter the U.S.
through land border ports are not required to present a passport, and are often not
required to obtain a visa. In additi
5
on, Canadian citizens and British subjects residing
in Canada are generally not required to obtain an I-94 form, if they are entering the
U.S. temporarily for business or pleasure. Canadians entering the U.S. for purposes
other than business or pleasure, e.g., employment, trade, and diplomatic activities,
etc., are issued an I-94. Upon departure, the Canadian government collects I-94
departure records for the INS. Canadians, however, are not exempted from Section
110. Legislation has been introduced that would exempt Canadians from the
requirements of Section 110. Nevertheless, even if Canadian nationals were
exempted, this would not obviate the need for an entry/exit control system for non-
Canadian nationals entering the United States through northern land border ports.
Southern Land Border. The Mexican government has long complained about
the difference in treatment of its nationals at the border as compared to Canadian
nationals. Some Members of Congress have also questioned this difference in

5 Section 212(d)(4)(B) of the INA gives the Secretary of State and the Attorney General the
discretionary authority to waive documentary requirements for admission. And, these
requirements are often waived on a basis of reciprocity.

---

CRS-6
treatment. Mexican nationals applying for admission to the U.S. as visitors are
required to obtain a visa or hold a Border Crossing Card, either of which can be
inconvenient to obtain. Border Crossing Cards are issued to Mexican nationals who
are frequent border crossers and who can demonstrate that they are unlikely to
abandon their Mexican residence. This document is by far the most common
document presented by Mexican nationals seeking to enter the U.S. temporarily at
land border ports. If they intend to go 25 miles or further inland and/or stay longer
6
than 72 hours, they are also required to obtain an I-94.7 Upon departure, I-94s are to
be deposited into boxes at ports of entry; however, this act is completely voluntary.
Border Crossing Cards may be instrumental in implementing Section 110 on the
southern land border.
A related provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, Section 104, requires that a biometric identifier be developed and
incorporated into all new Border Crossing Cards by April 1, 1998; and that only the
new card will be accepted after September 30, 1999. Section 104 requires further
that aliens presenting the new document not be allowed to cross the border unless
that biometric identifier matches the alien document holder’s characteristics.
The document required by Section 104 has been designated by INS and the
Department of State as the “laser visa.” On April 1, 1998, the Department of State
began replacing the Border Crossing Cards with the “laser visa,” which combines the
functions of the Border Crossing Card and the B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant temporary visa
for business or pleasure. Unlike in the past, however, the Administration decided
that INS will not adjudicate claims for “laser visas” as they did for Border Crossing
Cards at ports of entry; rather, the Department of State will be entirely responsible
for adjudicating all such claims at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and at U.S.
consulates within Mexico. Moreover, there is a $45 fee attached to the “laser visa;”
whereas, the Border Crossing Card only cost $26. Critics point out that attaining a
“laser visa” is more inconvenient and costly today than attaining a Border Crossing
Card was previously. To facilitate the replacement of the estimated 5.5 million
Border Crossing Cards currently in circulation, the Department of State has
approached the Mexican government about opening several temporary offices in
Mexican border cities. Meanwhile, valid Border Crossing Cards will continue to be
accepted at ports of entry up to the Section 104 deadline of September 30, 1999.
Current policy on the southern land border has been justified primarily because
inadmissable applicants for admission are interdicted at ports of entry in greater
frequency on the southern land border than on the northern land border. For
example, in FY1997, for every one inadmissible alien interdicted on the northern
border, twenty-eight were interdicted on the southern border. In addition, in recent
8
6 Border Crossing Cards are also issued to Canadians, but much less frequently, and INS
intends to phase their use out for Canadians in the near future.
7 Prior to April 1997, Mexicans nationals with Border Crossing Card’s were issued I-444s,
instead of I-94s.
8 Inadmissable aliens interdicted include those aliens reported by INS as having either
presented fraudulent documents, made false claims to U.S. citizenship, or made other false
claims to inspectors at ports of entry.

---

CRS-7
years, the Border Patrol has apprehended over a million Mexican nationals annually
attempting to enter the U.S. without inspection between ports of entry. Moreover,
federal law enforcement agencies have estimated that a very large percentage of
illegal narcotics entering the U.S. are smuggled across the southern land border, both
between and through ports of entry.
Land Border Automated Entry/Exit Control System. At land border ports
of entry, there is currently no procedure or system in place upon which to build an
automated entry/exit control system. INS is likely to build upon recent technological
initiatives, like dedicated commuter lanes and other expedited inspection processes
(based upon machine readable documents, biometrics, and radio frequency tags), but
there is currently no comprehensive technological solution that will allow the agency
to rapidly implement Section 110 at land border ports. It is also probable that
intensifying the inspections process at land border ports will necessitate more
inspection lanes, booths, and staff. Furthermore, capturing departure records
essentially means that INS will create some sort of departure process to collect
information where none exits today. This may mean duplicating, at least to some
degree, the inspections process for returning traffic. Where possible, this may also
require segmenting vehicular traffic; for example, commercial trucks would be
inspected in designated lanes, as would citizens, frequent border crossers, and all
others.
Meanwhile, many contend that if Section 110 is implemented without a clear
assessment of system requirements, it will cause gridlock at land border ports,
disrupting trade, commerce, tourism, and other legitimate cross-border traffic.
Others argue further that there is no need for the creation of a record of arrival and
departure for all aliens every time they cross the border; i.e., the costs of Section 110
will outweigh its benefits. Some have proposed that a risk analysis approach would
be more efficient, that by increasing inspections staff and the number of random
inspections, border security could be increased with greater efficiency and less cost.
Such arguments lead others to propose postponing the Section 110 deadline
indefinitely until feasibility and cost/benefit studies can be conducted.
Proponents of Section 110 maintain that they have lost patience with INS,
asserting that the need for an automated entry/exit control system was recognized
long before the passage of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act. They argue further that such a system is essential to ensure the integrity of
nonimmigrant admissions as well as the control of U.S. borders.
Current Legislation
Congress has acted upon several pieces of legislation that include provisions to
either modify or repeal Section 110. The House passed H.R. 2920 on November 10,
1997 to extend the deadline for the establishment of an automated entry/exit control
system to September 30, 1999 for land border ports, leaving the September 30, 1998
deadline in place for airports and seaports.
The Senate, on the other hand, has passed two separate measures. The first
measure, the Commerce, Justice, State (CJS), and the Judiciary Appropriations Act
for FY1999 (S. 2260) which passed the Senate on July 23, 1998, includes a provision

---

CRS-8
to repeal Section 110 outright. This repeal goes even farther than the Administration
which proposed eliminating the FY1998 deadline for land border and seaports of
entry. S. 2260 also includes a provision to amend Section 104 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (Division C of P.L. 104-208),
to phase-in incrementally the replacement of Border Crossing Cards, rather than
require that they be replaced entirely by the end of FY1999 as under current law.
This provision would require that a quarter of the estimated 5.5 million cards
currently in circulation be replaced by the beginning of FY2000, half by FY2001,
three-quarters by FY2002, and complete replacement by the beginning of FY2003.
Another provision in S. 2260 would allow the Department of State (the agency
tasked with issuing the new document) to set a fee for the new document (currently
designated the “laser visa”) that ensures full cost recovery. On the other hand, this
provision would waive the fee for children under 15 years of age and limit the
validity of the document to 10 years, or until the child reaches 15 years of age. This
provision would also require the Secretary of State to process such claims in the
Mexican border cities of Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad Acuna, Piedras Negras,
Agua Prieta, and Reynosa through the end of FY2000.
The second measure, H.R. 2920, passed the Senate on July 30, 1998, after being
amended with the text of S. 1360; the amendment’s text is a slightly modified version
of S. 1360 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee (S.Rept. 105-197). The
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2920 would rewrite Section 110 to exempt land border
and seaports of entry from Section 110's requirements, but require that such a system
be implemented at air ports of entry by two years of the date of enactment.
The Senate-passed H.R. 2920 would also require the Attorney General to submit
a number of reports related to Section 110 to the Senate and House Judiciary
Committees. First, two years following enactment, this bill would require a report
outlining the feasibility of such a system at land border and seaports of entry.
Second, at the end of each fiscal year, this bill would require detailed status reports
on the development of an automated entry/exit control system at airports of entry.
And, third, S. 1360 would require annual reports on the number of nonimmigrant
overstays identified through the newly developed automated entry/exit control
system.
The Senate-passed H.R. 2920 also includes Border Crossing Card provisions,
which are similar to those included in the Senate-passed S. 2260. Finally, the Senate-
passed H.R. 2920 would authorize increased funding and resources for the INS
Inspections program and the U.S. Border Patrol to enhance border enforcement and
drug interdiction capabilities at land border ports of entry and Border Patrol highway
checkpoints.
During House consideration of the FY1999 Commerce, Justice, State (CJS), and
the Judiciary Appropriations Act for FY1999 (H.R. 4276), Representative Jack
Metcalf and Representative Lamar Smith (Chairman of the House Judiciary
Immigration and Claims Subcommittee) entered into a colloquy during which
Representative Smith “emphasized that Section 110 should be implemented in a

---

CRS-9
manner that will not have an adverse impact on trade, tourism or other legitimated
traffic across our land borders.”9
Report language accompanying the House-passed FY1999 CJS Appropriations
Act (H.R. 4276) earmarks $20 million to continue the development of a Section 110
system, matching the Administration’s request. The Senate-passed FY1999 CJS
Appropriations Act (S. 2260) includes no similar earmark, since this bill includes a
provision to repeal Section 110. For FY1998, P.L. 105-119 provided INS with $13
million for the continued development of an automated entry/exit control system
9 Congressional Record, August 4, 1998, H7147.

---