Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this was an amendment that I was not planning to offer unless the language we had in the bill relating to CAPPS2 was stricken. And, unfortunately, there was a point of order raised on the CAPPS2 language and some very important language relating to privacy was stricken from the bill. This is a rather simple amendment. The fact is the Department's privacy office has huge responsibilities and a limited budget. The amendment increases funding for the Department's privacy office by $2 million. The charge of the Department's privacy office has grown far beyond what was originally envisioned in the Department's budget projection. The Secretary delegated Freedom of Information Act oversight to this office in addition to its privacy duties. The privacy issues at the Department are huge, particularly with the TSA, CAPPS2, and transportation worker identification cards programs, and MATRIX. The privacy office will also be the last point of passenger appeals. Because we eliminated the Capps language which required GAO to do a review of the Department's efforts to put CAPPS2 in place, and because there are new requirements being issued by the Department and how they are going to put their CAPPS2 list together, again we have a requirement in the Capps amendments that GAO review that process. That was deleted from this bill. Because of this vacuum by what we did because of a point of order, there is increased sensitivity and responsibility for this office to deal with some of what I think are the most crucial privacy issues that are involved in the Department of Transportation security. So I think they are going to have significant additional, they were going to have significant increase in work load before the elimination of the TSA language. That simply increases their job responsibilities and some sensitivity of what they have to do. I urge adoption of this amendment. The $2 million comes from aviation security which is a fund of over $4 billion. This clearly is a very important expenditure for aviation security, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have some Members that have amendments and they are on their way. I know the ranking member of the full committee has an important amendment, and I know there are a couple of others, but we are getting close. Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one issue that is partially dealt with in this bill, but not to the degree that I think it should be, is the whole question of the screening of cargo on passenger aircraft. Last year, the House passed by an overwhelming margin a provision requiring all cargo on passenger planes to be screened. Then that did not survive conference. We continued to do some work in that area. A very limited amount of cargo is being screened. This bill says it should be doubled, but doubling a small number still leaves us very little cargo being screened. I think it is one of the most vulnerable parts of airline security. I think most of the people in this country have no sense that most of the cargo going into the passenger plane that they are flying is not screened. We clearly have the potential and the capability to do more. At times we have gone to heightened security alert in this country, and the screening has gone up substantially. It is an area where we should be moving aggressively and increasing the screening. I offered a committee amendment that would have called for a fivefold increase in the amount of cargo to be screened. I thought it was doable. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. So I just want to express my concern that this is one area which clearly has been a target of terrorists for a long time, the aviation industry, where we remain very, very vulnerable; and I just think it is urgent that the agency and the Congress pay much more attention to the question of cargo screening on passenger planes than we have done and an area where we need much more aggressive action in the future.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. Let me say he is a pleasure to work with. He is a very knowledgeable, hardworking chairman, and he does an exceptional job as he has in heading two other subcommittees in this House. He is a long-experienced chairman. We do have good subcommittee members and a great staff on both sides of the aisle. It is a pleasure working with the gentleman and the staff and the other members of this subcommittee. We have our differences, but I think we also have a good product. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of our committee, and friend. (Mr. Price of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his staff for their hard work in producing the legislation we have today. President Bush's 2005 homeland security budget request fell far short; and while this bill is an improvement, and that it is, I am concerned that it does not go far enough to close troubling homeland security gaps. The committee followed a logical plan in distributing the $32 billion allocation. However, this measure does not provide the resources needed to significantly improve our ability to detect terrorist activities or to respond to an attack. The committee was forced to make trade-offs among programs to improve disaster preparedness and response, immigration services, and programs to stop terrorists. As a result, we have some worrisome gaps. The first responder funding cuts, this funding cut for local fire, police, and emergency personnel, is one of my biggest concerns. With cuts in fire grants and deep cuts in formula funds to most States, overall the bill provides $327 million less for first responders than was enacted in 2004. While funding to certain high-threat urban areas is increased, the fact is that this increase comes at the expense of the rest of the country. If these cuts hold, next year most States and localities will end up with less homeland security funding than they have today. This bill comes just weeks after the American people saw live television coverage of the Attorney General and the FBI Director giving us alarming warnings of imminent terrorist attacks. At their press conference, Mr. Ashcroft said that our own intelligence and al Qaeda public statements indicated that it is almost ready to attack the United States and that they intend to hit us hard. This week an alleged al Qaeda operative was indicted for plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio. If terrorists attack us again, our local police, firefighters, and emergency workers will be the first on the scene. It frustrates me that there is little sense of urgency to ensure that these first responders have the tools that they need to do their jobs. This legislation also fails to address other critical homeland security issues. Two of my chief concerns are the inadequate inspection of cargo carried on passenger planes and the lax Federal oversight of chemical plant security practices. Unlike passenger baggage, the cargo on passenger aircraft is not rigorously inspected, even though it is carried in the same hold. Furthermore, cargo carried on all cargo aircraft is not inspected at all. I am also troubled that the administration continues to have inadequate chemical plant security policies. For the most part, vulnerability assessments and security plans are left to the plant owners' consciences. Last, I would like to point out a bill provision concerning the CAPPS2 air passenger prescreening system that TSA is developing and may be testing later this year. This provision updates last year's bill by requiring the Secretary to certify, and the General Accounting Office to review, the certification that all eight security and privacy criteria are met before the passenger profiling system can be deployed. In its first review in February, the GAO found that TSA had met only one of the eight criteria. The new language also specifically mandates that GAO review the CAPPS2 methodology that is intended to predict whether a passenger could be a terrorist. This element is the most sensitive aspect of CAPPS2 with broad implications for Americans' privacy and civil liberties. In closing, I am concerned that this bill continues, does not do more to close the troubling homeland security gaps. The American people demand our best efforts to protect the country from those who would do us harm, and the Congress should be more aggressive in challenging the administration where it falls short. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), I think I know a little bit about budgets, having spent some time doing that, at a time when we passed budgets that reduced the deficit and we had some tough requirements on spending, and raised revenues to make the deficits go down. The reality is that the most important decision in a budget resolution is the total amount set for discretionary spending. That then governs the decisions we have to make on this bill and the other 12 bills that we have before the Congress. If that budget resolution has an unrealistic number for the total discretionary spending, it limits every option we have. I think I and others have been clear that this bill represents an improvement over what the President asked for, that it has reasonable choices within the dollar allotment that this committee has given. I think the chairman has done an excellent job. I would not share his enthusiasm for how good the Department is going, but he is also tough on them at many times. But there is also one other thing that we do, and that is we say there are certain expenditures that are emergencies and go above and beyond the normal budget process. Since 9/11, we have appropriated billions of dollars as emergency expenditures for our friends in New York, for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think with unanimity on the expenditures in Afghanistan, division over our operation in Iraq, but then again significant support for our troops whether we agreed or disagreed with that policy. Just the other day in appropriations, we appropriated $25 billion more of emergency spending beyond the normal defense appropriation for next year for operations in the Middle East, and we know that number is going to increase. What some of us are saying is that there are significant security gaps that we should deal with in this country and we should have a modest amount as emergency spending. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked for $3 billion for rational things to do, disciplined things to do, in comparison to the billions and billions we are spending outside this country. That is legitimate debate. It is legitimate options that we could do, and some are choosing not to do that. If we declared it emergency and appropriated that $3 billion, it could not be spent unless the President decided to spend it. So what we are talking about here is not irrelevant, it is important and there are distinct differences; and those differences do not diminish our respect for the quality of work done by the chairman and the subcommittee. I would just suggest do not belittle the opinions of lots of people in this place that there are significant security gaps in domestic security, echoed by all kinds of experts outside this institution that we are not dealing with. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the full committee. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the authorizing committee for a significant part of this bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) who has done an outstanding job as the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, unrelated to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) had an amendment right prior to that, and I think he was standing right here. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) be allowed to offer his amendment after the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I am ready to vote.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman on a very good amendment. It is a much needed study.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I suppose if it were an ideal world, I would prefer not to have staffing caps and would like to think I could trust an agency to manage the staffing. There is nothing about TSA that gives me that confidence. I have dealt with endless agencies over the years. I have never dealt with one more frustrating to deal with in all my years of public service than TSA. There was maybe no option other than top-down development in the agency at the beginning, but it was chaotic. It was hiring people without any thought. It was not managing contracts. It was wasting money all over the place. Today, there is no reason to continue that top-down management. It does not work. I am impressed by the new director from what he says. Maybe the agency can change; but if we say, have your own way, those pressures will disappear. There are times when we have agencies when they are not working, we have got to force them to make some decisions. They clearly mismanaged personnel, misallocated personnel all over the country. Incredibly bureaucratic, top down, people at the bottom cannot make decisions, cannot hire people. I do not think they can train people, maybe a little bit. So I understand why my colleagues are frustrated. If I thought that giving them more people would solve their problem in a fashion, then I might be more sympathetic, if not repealing the ceiling or adjusting it; but I have no confidence that they would handle and manage additional people. I think we have to force them to make those judgments, to reallocate those sources. Speaking a hypothetical, I have no trust that simply adding people to them are going to relieve lines in certain airports. The reality is lifting the cap in this bill does nothing about the staffing and capping limits for this summer. So I think we have no option but keeping this cap until this agency is restructured, we get some real bottom up management, with good people in place at the local level. Let me just conclude, again, by saying I have never seen an agency so mismanaged from the beginning and totally wasting resources in my life that I think having a cap is the only responsible thing to do; and I think we have to maintain it, and keep their feet to the fire.