Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the disappointments I had in this rule was it did not waive a point of order on what I thought was a very reasonable limitation on the development of CAPPS2. The gentleman from Kentucky graciously accepted that amendment in committee. I would hope that the folks who are objecting would not raise a point of order when we get to that in the regular bill. The provision is a moderate attempt to make sure that this very, very large system of compiling information on the American public receives the closest of scrutiny and the closest of examination by GAO and others before it is implemented. Our amendment left in place the money for the program, left in place the capacity of the Department to proceed with work on how they want to put the program together, but requires it be scrutinized by GAO and the Academy of Science to look at the privacy issues and also to look at its effectiveness. It has the potential to be the largest intrusion of the American government into the private lives of American people that has ever occurred. It also, on the other hand, has the ability to be a system that totally complicates our screening process if it is not done well. Rather than simplify, it may make our whole screening process more cumbersome and more costly and less effective. If a point of order is raised, the only alternative we will have is to seek a pure limitation without the language. I would hope the House would adopt such a limitation, if that is the situation we find ourselves in, but I much prefer we preserve the language which is for new activity of the Department, one not specifically authorized with guidelines by Congress. It is a new activity that the Department is pursuing and we simply want to put some regulations in place as they move forward to make sure this whole new large complicated program is put in place in a fashion that would work. I might remind people this is an agency that has had trouble figuring out whether their own workforce has had criminal involvement in the past. They are struggling to make sure that their personnel do not have criminal backgrounds. They have not succeeded doing that yet. So we should be a little cautious before we give them a blank check to move forward with a huge new complicated screening process of the American public. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In relationship to our latest colloquy, I understand the concern of people over the situation in New York. They clearly have unusual problems. Would the chairman agree with me that we do not know precisely how the agency sets criteria for the balance of funds in this particular discretionary program?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have a little trouble getting a precise understanding of what criteria are used.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would join the chairman in opposing the amendment. The committee and the chairman have been very tough task masters of TSA when it comes to the number of screeners. We have been urging them for a long time to use more part-time people and to make more efficient use of their personnel. On the other hand, if we get too harsh, there may be imbalance around the country in terms of where there are vacancies and where there are an overabundance. So if we get too tough, we can be very counterproductive. I agree with the chairman that first responder money is important, but the committee has been very disciplined in dealing with TSA, and I would join the chairman in opposing this additional cut.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I think he has given good advice to the body.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. SABO. It is sort of strange. Would the gentleman from Florida yield?

Mr. SABO. In discussion of his point of order, we are trying to figure out how----

Mr. SABO. Okay. Let me see if I figure out how we do this, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I think I understand what the gentleman from Florida is saying is that he is raising a point of order against this provision because it is legislation on an appropriation bill. However, he is also telling me that the authorizing committee is meeting tomorrow and it is their intent to adopt provisions that are similar in substance to what is contained in the language of the appropriations bill, which will then be amended in another bill. The gentleman from Minnesota would observe that, as he has read what is intended to be offered tomorrow, that in many ways it is similar and if that bill were before us we would not be subject to a point of order. However, the gentleman from Minnesota has also observed that some of the enforcement techniques within the proposed language are significantly weaker. I would observe that the proposal that the committee will be considering tomorrow leaves the responsibility for reviewing CAPPS2 proposal internally in the Department while the language in question, which is subject to a point of order now, gives that responsibility to the GAO; and I would hope the gentleman from Florida would consider such language because frankly one of my concerns is the Department may not be equipped to make a good judgment. We, frankly, have watched an agency that has had a problem trying to figure out which of their own employees do or do not have criminal backgrounds, and we think it might be a significant advantage to have the GAO look at their proposed plans before they are implemented rather than waiting until a year after deployment and development of these plans to have a GAO study. So I would urge the gentleman from Florida, as he ponders whether he should continue to press this point of order, that they might well consider expanding at an earlier stage the review of GAO of the pending plans of the agency.

Mr. SABO. Would it now apply to all parts of the Department of Homeland Security, so it would also apply to TSA?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to listen to the gentleman from Colorado as he explained his amendment. I have read the amendment several times and I, frankly, have to admit I do not understand it.

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we now have a new department. It could not have existed in 1996.

Mr. SABO. So it applied to the INS, the existing law?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am having trouble following what this amendment does or does not do. It may be of significant relevance to some people.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, in this institution of democracy there is always a small group of smart, talented, hardworking, honest people who labor anonymously behind the scenes. They are absolutely essential to the success of our form of government. Al Davis was at the top of that group. His brilliance was exceeded only by his work effort and his integrity. Al worked hard to help those of us who are Members of Congress fulfill our responsibilities in developing, debating, and voting on tax and budget laws. He also helped other staffers, policy thinkers, academics, reporters, and the general public understand the issues. I am told that whenever tax policy experts around town ran into a particularly thorny problem, they looked at each other and would say, this is an Al question. Al was also brutal in his honesty. If he thought something was a bad idea, it did not matter where it came from, he would tell the truth. Al made himself learn budget rules even when they seemed silly, so that he could bring his understanding of economics and tax law into the budget process. He spent endless hours late into the night doing calculations and grinding out memos on every possible point of argument or challenge that might come up from a floor debate. Al patiently answered the same questions over and over, so Members who had not been in the committee debates could understand what they were voting on. He spent endless hours helping our staffs learn what they needed to know. Having said all that, I have to admit there are other staffers here who share these same traits. So what about Al made him so special and so sad to lose him? Much has been said of Al's love of irony and quick humor, but I do not remember him that way. To me, the best single word to describe Al is ``twinkly.'' He was always smiling and winking about something, usually involving numbers. His eyes would sparkle as he saw wonderful number games and possibilities in his mind long before the rest of us caught up with him. There was a little bounce in those long, lanky strides as he walked down the hall, and when he had his special numbers game going in his head, he literally danced. Like many of the people in the world I come from, Al was a man of few words, but he also was a man of many numbers. He used his profound understanding of numerical relationships and the flow of money to make life better for all Americans, but particularly for people in need. At heart, he was a deeply kind man and a true populist. The House of Representatives, indeed all the people of this country, have lost a great resource, and I have lost a dear friend. I will miss him very much.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for yielding me time, and commend my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) who is handling the bill and the resolution on the majority side. Mr. Speaker, Minnesota is a hockey State. I think we are the premiere hockey State in the country, and it has been a great year for hockey in Minnesota. Most recently, we have been excited about the, I suppose what you call, surprising success of the Wild in getting into the division championship in the NHL. But while they are new to our State, Golden Gophers have been playing hockey for 81 years. And that rich tradition we salute today as we congratulate them on winning a second consecutive NCAA championship. But that is part of a rich tradition. This is their fifth national championship. In their 81 years, they have been in the NCAA Frozen Four Finals 18 times, 27 times to the NCAA tournaments. They have appeared in the national tournament for 13 consecutive years, an NCAA record; 12 conference playoff championships; 10 conference championships. So they come with a rich, rich tradition of outstanding hockey. Five national championships. It is a unique team, a unique school with a rich tradition of good hockey, good athletes, good scholars. So we are proud of them. We are proud. We also know that unless there is some unusual circumstances, like pro hockey, most of the team is going to be back next year. Clearly, if you were to pick a favorite today for the NCAA hockey championship a year from now, the Gophers would lead the way. So to Coach Don Lucia, to all his staff, all his players, the University administration, we say a hearty congratulations on your great success these last 2 years. We congratulate you for a rich tradition of hockey in the hockey State of the United States. We are proud of you and we wish you well in the future.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in memory of our colleague, Paul Wellstone. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and I had the unique opportunity of serving with Paul for 12 years. But when I think of Paul, I think of him primarily not in his role as a member of the U.S. Senate but as a person, a person who, when we saw Paul, we expected to see Sheila. They were exceptionally close, and they were exceptionally close to their family; to Marsha, who unfortunately was on the plane with them; and to their sons, David and Mark, and to their grandchildren. They were an incredibly close family. Paul was so proud of his kids and his grandkids, and wanted to spend as much time as he could with them. I also think of Paul as someone who really connected with people for really two reasons. One, he liked people. He met them with a flourish and enthusiasm. Secondly, he really had empathy for problems that impacted people. All he said and did in politics was not about theory, but about how what we do here impacts people in their daily lives. Paul, the elected official, was a person who always saw himself as primarily representing the underdog, the underrepresented in society, and he did that with compassion and intelligence and enthusiasm and incredibly hard work. So Americans, those that struggle day to day in life, lost a true friend, a true advocate. We remember his boys and his grandchildren today, they carry on a remarkable family, and we offer them our sympathy and our thoughts in the days and weeks and months ahead, but our State and our country suffered a real loss in that plane accident.