On the recordJune 1, 2011
I wish to join the chairman of our subcommittee in opposing this amendment--not because there are any funds in this bill for these advanced imaging machines, this particular technology. There is no funding in this bill for this purpose, but on principle, this amendment is objectionable. It could be very damaging. I won't dwell on the privacy safeguards. I think they've been debated in this body before, and we're well aware that privacy safeguards surrounding the use of this equipment are extensive--the face is blurred, there is no storage of the images, the operator of the machine is off the premises. And as the chairman just said, the technology is constantly being improved to protect privacy further. But the point also needs to be made that an amendment like this, if it were implemented--not just with respect to the current year funding, but with ongoing acquisition of these machines--this amendment would reduce our ability to find non-metallic explosives and weapons or bombs carried on a person's body. That's the fact of the matter. These advanced imaging machines are better able to detect a wide variety of threats that metal detectors simply cannot pick up. So adopting this amendment would put our citizens at risk. It's a step backwards in our security provisions and it should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).…
