Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. But we find that when we raise threat levels in this country, the law enforcement and local responders are expected to respond throughout the country and they have the same problem over time, training, teaching people how to use new equipment, wondering what it means, increasing pressure on local law enforcement. What I hear from all of them is that their expenditures exceed whatever revenue they are getting from the Federal Government. I expect the gentleman hears the same thing.

Mr. SABO. And this amendment, as I understand it, would take some of this little money that we distribute throughout the country and say we are going to cut that from everyone. Where they are working, trying to coordinate expenditures to make most efficient use of it, take it from that and give them to a few areas where we have already increased the administration's budget by $500 million; am I right?

Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, and this is money that local responders can use for buying new equipment in a coordinated fashion, in a State plan or for training to have them become equipped to meet the threats that may occur in this country?

Mr. SABO. But does it expand who the law applies to?

Mr. SABO. Are there new and different grants that could be restricted?

Mr. SABO. I am trying to understand, again, Mr. Chairman. Can the gentleman tell me who the original law applied to, in what form?

Mr. SABO. Yes.

Mr. SABO. But, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to get at, I guess, is my understanding that you are saying that the old law applied to the INS; this law now applies to the Department of Homeland Security, which is 22 agencies rather than one agency.

Mr. SABO. So it would be a significant expansion in the scope of what the current law is?

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman. Point of Order

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to ask the gentleman a question. What cities would this apply to?

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

Mr. SABO. Houston. And do I understand correctly, because I have tried to read this language. I am sorry, there was so much noise I could not clearly hear what the gentleman was saying. Under old law, under the INS, there were certain restrictions that we passed that in some fashion applied to the transfer of funds from the INS if a city did certain things; is that what it states?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I read this amendment, this says, none of the funds can be used to provide assistance to any State or local government, entity, or official that does certain things. I do not quite understand the end of this, what they are or are not doing. My assumption is that now this would apply to FEMA funds, emergency funds; it would apply to airports that are receiving funds under the Transportation Security Act.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sorry, I am having trouble again. But as I read this, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide assistance to any State or local government or official that restricts any government entity or official from sending or receiving funds, and I am not sure what agency the gentleman is referring to. But ``none of the funds that are used to provide assistance'' would now include all of the funds flowing to airports from the TSA; and it would apply to FEMA funds, I would assume. It would apply to all of the first responder funds that are in this bill. I would assume it would apply to all the port funds that are in this bill.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will let someone else maybe try and figure it out. I remain confused. It just seems to go farther to me than what the gentleman has indicated.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

Mr. SABO. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule for the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The rule should be opposed for several reasons. I will raise two of them. First, the rule does not protect an amendment I offered that was adopted in committee which concerns the Transportation Security Administration's new computerized airline passenger profile system called CAPPS2. As proposed, CAPPS2 potentially represents the largest-ever intrusion of the Federal Government into our personal lives. Under it, a Federal agency would mine sensitive personnel data on millions of people for the routine event of flying on an airplane. The privacy and due process concerns are immense. The administration has been working on CAPPS2 since late last year. But there remains many unanswered questions about it. It deserves far more scrutiny than has been paid so far. I am concerned that TSA may not currently possess the expertise to design a fair and effective passenger screening system, one that catches the people who mean us harm, while protecting those who do not. I am concerned for law abiding people, especially those with common names and those who move residences often or who do not have well- established credit histories like college students and older Americans. I worry that these honest people will be singled out for further TSA screening, not based on risk but simply because the system is not well designed. I am concerned that while TSA may set up a mediator to deal with passenger problems, it may be a mediator in name only. There may be no adequate process for passengers to get problems fully resolved because TSA will not control all the data bases it plans to use. If so, once red flagged, will law abiding people be needlessly hassled every time they fly? And to make matters worse, would such mistaken red flags of people who pose no risk cause the passenger and baggage screening systems to become overburdened, thereby raising the risk of lowering it? My amendment, the CAPPS2 provision in the bill, requires the GAO to review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a planned pilot program. GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they submitted on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program. It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been filed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I suspect none. The CAPPS2 provisions in the bill are reasonable and should have been protected in the rule from points of order.