Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program Authorization Act of 2018

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6439, the Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program Authorization Act of 2018.

I have long supported Department of Homeland Security overseas programs aimed at preventing terrorist threats from ever arriving at our borders. In fact, over the years, I have sponsored a number of measures that specifically seek to drive greater international collaboration and expand DHS' overseas border security footprint.

Two well-established overseas DHS programs that come to mind are:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Preclearance program, in which officers are posted abroad to screen travelers prior to boarding U.S.- bound flights; and

Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Visa Security Program, in which ICE special agents are posted at overseas consulates to assist State Department staff in visa vetting.

Earlier this Congress, Representative Filemon Vela, the lead Democrat on our Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, introduced two bills aimed at bolstering international border and counterterrorism cooperation:

H.R. 2218 would authorize ICE's Border Enforcement Security Task Force, a program that has been proven to be effective at enhancing cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The second bill, H.R. 4578, is targeted at expanding efforts carried out by CBP's National Targeting Center aimed at disrupting and dismantling terrorists and other criminal networks.

When presented to the full House, both bills received unanimous support from Democrats for good reason: They are effective counterterrorism programs.

However, I am sorry to say, as of today, there is not enough data to assess whether the same can be said for ICE's Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program, or BITMAP, pilot. As such, I cannot support permanently authorizing it, as set forth under H.R. 6439.

I would expect that some Members of this body are unfamiliar with the program, as it is largely a classified program and, as such, little information about BITMAP is in the public domain.

Since 2011, ICE's BITMAP pilot program has trained and equipped foreign law enforcement partners on collecting biographic and biometric data of foreign nationals migrating through partner countries so that such information can be checked against U.S. intelligence and law enforcement databases.

The stated goal of the program is to identify known or suspected terrorists or criminals prior to arrival at our borders. Though in operation for several years, the volume of data collected only started to be significant in the last 2 years.

Prior to considering H.R. 6439 in committee, committee members had repeatedly been presented in a classified setting with anecdotes about successes that the program has experienced. While we appreciated hearing positive news about this pilot, anecdotes are not enough to justify permanently authorizing this program. Anecdotes are no substitute for data and evidence of efficiency.

In an effort to secure data prior to committee consideration, I submitted a number of basic questions about the program's efficacy and operations to ICE.

I received a response prior to the committee's markup that raised further questions about BITMAP's efficacy as well as core operational questions, such as:

After checks against databases, what does the U.S. Government do with the records it collects on migrants who are not found to have terrorist ties?

What, if any, protections exist to guard against the collection of highly personal and sensitive information from migrants with no criminal or terrorist ties who are encountered nowhere near the U.S.- Mexico border and have no intentions of coming anywhere close to it?

What, if any, audit or oversight mechanisms exist to ensure that foreign partners adhere to requirements of the program and do not use this sophisticated law enforcement tool to suppress domestic activities?

Over the recess, ICE officials briefed the committee staff about BITMAP, but fundamental questions remain.

I hope that there will be a day when I can say without reservation that, after careful review of BITMAP's operational documents and data, I fully support making it permanent. Unfortunately, today is not the day.

In the absence of evidence, I cannot support H.R. 6439, but I am supportive of the pilot continuing so that ICE can work to aggregate and assess critical data to make an evidentiary case to Congress for why the program should be permanently authorized.

I would note that enactment of H.R. 6439 is not necessary for BITMAP to continue to operate. With or without passage of H.R. 6439, ICE expects to continue to be able to operate the pilot.

Madam Speaker, before I close, I include in the Record a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to this legislation.

September 4, 2018.

Re Vote NO on H.R. 6439, the Biometric Identification

Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP)

Authorization Act of 2018.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, National

Immigration Law Center and the National Immigration Project

of the National Lawyers Guild, we urge you to oppose H.R.

6439, legislation that would permanently authorize the

biometric pilot program known as ``BITMAP'' within the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The House is expected

to consider this bill under suspension of the rules on

Tuesday, September 4, 2018. We urge you to oppose H.R. 6439.

H.R. 6439 would permanently authorize BITMAP, a program

which has existed since 2010--but with no privacy or

transparency protections, and with insufficient fact-finding

during committee consideration of the bill. Although BITMAP

would continue without enactment of this legislation, the

House should not permanently authorize the BITMAP program

with limited information, no information on whether DHS takes

any steps to protect privacy, no studies regarding its

efficacy, and no statutory privacy or transparency

protections.

This bill raises significant concerns regarding the sharing

of information across foreign governments related to

suspicion of terrorism, gang violence, and other so-called

national security concerns with very little information as to

how this information is used and retained. In 2010, DHS began

piloting BITMAP to collect and share biometric and

biographical data on ``special interest aliens, violent

criminals, fugitives and confirmed or suspected terrorists.''

According to previous testimony by DHS officials, this also

includes gang members and other persons of interest who may

pose a potential national security concern.

There is no information or proof as to BITMAP's

effectiveness. Despite numerous requests from Congress,

including members of the House Homeland Security Committee,

DHS has failed to provide information since the program's

inception in 2010 that shows its effectiveness or that it is

tailored to meet its needs. Given this, it is premature to

permanently authorize the program, particularly given the

significant privacy and civil liberties concerns.

The legislation fails to require that the program adhere to

privacy protections. This program includes the sharing of

extraordinarily sensitive information regarding individuals

without warrant or analogous legal process. Yet, the

legislation fails to include any privacy standards that DHS

must follow with regards to the program. For example, what

information can be collected, how long can it be stored, when

can it be disseminated to other agencies, and can it be

shared with foreign partners? The omission of these

protections in the bill is particularly striking given that

the agency has not provided any public information regarding

what, if any, privacy protections currently apply to the

execution of BITMAP.

The legislation fails to place limits on how information

collected under BITMAP can be used. There is little to no

information regarding what actions may be triggered as a

result of these database checks nor information regarding

what is considered ``suspicion'' or a ``national security

concern.'' The terms used by officials in discussing this

program such as terrorism, gang members, and national

security concern have historically been used to target

Muslim, Arab, Iranian, Latinx, Middle Eastern, and South

Asian populations. The failure to provide information

regarding policies governing BITMAP raises significant

concerns that the program may result in unjust profiling and

discrimination. The existing legislation fails to include any

language that would prohibit such improper uses. Moreover,

insufficient information has been made public to assess

whether such profiling and discrimination are current

problems with the program.

Under this bill, DHS would have the authority to enter into

agreements with foreign countries to carry out BITMAP

operations without legislative or judicial review. Although

this bill would require DHS to notify Congress before the

execution of BITMAP agreements, the agreements would not be

subject to congressional authorization. This legislation

would significantly undermine Congress' oversight role by

allowing DHS to take measures without sufficient checks or

balances. Additionally, the bill fails to ensure that the

public is made aware of how DHS is exercising its authority.

It is irresponsible to permanently authorize BITMAP without

a full understanding of its effectiveness, policies and

procedures, privacy and civil rights protections, and

oversight mechanisms.

We urge you to oppose H.R. 6439.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union.

Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

National Immigration Law Center.

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

Madam Speaker, it is our duty as Members of Congress to ensure that counterterrorism pilot programs are effective prior to permanently authorizing them. As I mentioned at the outset, DHS has a number of proven overseas, border, and counterterrorism programs that have strong congressional bipartisan support.

However, with all due respect to the chairman, the efficacy of BITMAP as a counterterrorism program has not been established. As such, a permanent authorization of H.R. 6439 is premature.

Given the classified nature of this program, some Members are unfamiliar with it and there are natural limitations as to what we are able to discuss on the House floor. But I understand that at an unclassified staff-level briefing during the recess on threats in the Caribbean, ICE officials stated that BITMAP is working and successful, but failed to provide data to back up the assertions.

I will concede that ICE has shared some promising anecdotes, and I do not object to ICE officials touting what they see as a successful overseas program to Congress. However, when ICE's broad-based assertions and anecdotes are not backed up with data and metrics, it falls to Congress to carry out oversight of the program, not blindly authorize it.

Let's not reward the administration for failing to provide Congress with necessary data and metrics. Let's come

together and vote down H.R. 6439. By taking such action, we will be communicating to ICE our expectations, while in no way preventing the BITMAP pilot from continuing as it has for the past 7 years.

As I said earlier, I sincerely hope that the positive aspects of BITMAP being touted by the other side of the aisle today can be backed up by reliable data and facts. Unfortunately, the little information we have on BITMAP to date simply does not justify a standalone authorization.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6439, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have unfortunate circumstances. We do not have a bill that the majority has brought up for consideration, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, as I believe it is our duty. I will remind everyone that this bill was twice delayed in the markup for Labor-HHS, so we are trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Meanwhile, the Senate has passed a Labor-HHS-Education bill. The Senate bill is not perfect. In fact, there is much to improve, but it provides a foundation for conference negotiations between the House and the Senate.

The House bill, unfortunately, despite an increase of $18 billion in nondefense spending, the House Labor-HHS-Education bill is held to level funding. Out of a total increase of $18 billion, the Labor-HHS- Education bill should receive an increase of about $5.5 billion, and yet we received a zero increase, and Chairman Cole has heard me say this over and over and over again.

This allocation means that the House bill includes no new investments in the Child Care and Development Block Grant, nor new funding to help students afford a postsecondary education. The House bill also eliminates funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs, as well as health and safety grants. It even cuts funding for community health centers by $100 million, and the list goes on.

In addition, the House Labor-HHS-Education bill is loaded with ideological poison pill riders, including riders to block funding for the Affordable Care Act, block funding for family planning, block funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, and it adds new riders to protect Monsanto and to allow religious discrimination in child welfare services.

However, there is one crucially important issue that is addressed in the House bill that must be included in the final conference report. That is the President's manufactured crisis at the border. I speak, of course, of family separation, which has inflicted terrible trauma on children, their parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, and uncles.

The administration's policy of separating families is child abuse. Experts have sounded the alarm on the lasting damage that we are doing to these children. Parents are the buffer. With them, the children can endure incredibly stressful circumstances. Without them, the children are at risk of lasting mental and physical damage, and they are suffering these wounds at our hands.

Now, months and months later, approximately 500 children who were separated from their families remain in HHS custody. For most of these children, their parents were deported, and HHS has been unable to reunify these families, and unfathomably, may never be able to reunify them.

The administration has tried to pass off responsibility of reunifying these families to third parties like nonprofits. It is unconscionable. In the House bill, Democrats advanced the first congressional action to address this manufactured crisis. The full committee, I might add, on a bipartisan basis, adopted 12 amendments. These amendments must be retained in the final conference report.

These amendments, to discuss them very briefly, did a number of things. They expressed the sense of Congress that families should not be separated and that families should be reunited immediately. They required HHS to provide Congress a plan for swift reunification, to provide regular reporting, and to ensure the agency and its partners are upholding the highest standards with regards to care and privacy.

Family separation is not the only crucial element of the conference committees. Student safety must also be paramount, and thus, it is also important to address the issue of guns in our schools.

Arming teachers is not the answer to school shootings, and it is outrageous that Secretary DeVos would even consider using taxpayer dollars on such a dangerous proposal.

If the Trump administration actually wants to keep students safe, it should allow the Federal Commission on School Safety to consider the role guns play in school violence, support funding for gun violence prevention research at the CDC, and fully fund the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program to provide more mental health services and bullying prevention programs in our schools.

The Secretary has said she has no intention of weighing in on whether funds can be used or cannot be used to arm teachers. However, she should say that this money is not there for guns in the classrooms.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we must make the best of a bad situation. Republicans are not operating under regular order and abdicating our responsibility as the House of Representatives. Yet, as we proceed, we need to ensure that we advance the best policy under the circumstances. I believe that we should have had the House Labor-HHS bill come before the floor of the House.

I urge my colleagues on the conference committee to keep these priorities in mind as they work toward a final bill. The American people deserve nothing less. They are already getting too little. Let us not forget that our obligation and duty is to give people a better chance at a better life.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman needs to yield back, and then I close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, let me again urge the House conferees to look at the Senate Labor-HHS bill as a base for improvement, and I mean seriously to improve it.

I ask them again to please pay close attention to the priorities that we have outlined here today. The work of the Labor-HHS bill has always reflected our priorities as a Nation, helping to provide services that meet our most basic needs, our health, our children's education, and the scientific research that uncovers the cures of tomorrow. These are challenges that only the Federal Government has the ability, the capacity, and the resources to help us meet.

The central problem of the House bill is that it fails to meet that threshold. The American people are tired of Congress spending trillions in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while telling families and working people that we simply do not have the resources to invest in things that impact their daily lives. We can make those investments, but only if we make them a priority.

I want to say to the chairman of the subcommittee, to Mr. Cole, that we have been able to bargain in good faith over the last several years, and that ought to be our goal in this effort, so that we can meet the mission of what this Labor-HHS bill has at its core. It is about the people of this country and meeting their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6439) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish in the Department of Homeland Security the Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my legislation to help protect the American people and keep our homeland safe.

We are only 1 week out from the 17th anniversary of 9/11, and a lot has changed since those four horrifying attacks, but one thing remains the same: America's enemies are always looking for new ways to sneak into our country.

Today, many special interest aliens and other nefarious actors, including potential terrorists, are exploiting illicit pathways throughout Central and South America, racing towards the border.

To combat this threat, we need to leverage our international partnerships and use advanced technology to our advantage. One of the best tools we have is ICE's Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program, otherwise known as BITMAP. BITMAP was created in 2011 by the Obama administration and is utilized on five different continents.

Through this program, trained and vetted law enforcement officers collect biometric and biographic data on potentially dangerous individuals traveling through their country. The collected data is then shared with American law enforcement, the Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies. This vital information helps us enrich our databases, map illicit pathways, exploit networks, and learn about individuals looking to bring harm.

In the last few years, BITMAP has identified several hundred known or suspected terrorists. Top national security officials from DOD and DHS have testified to its success. For example, former Acting Director of ICE, Thomas Homan, told me at a recent hearing: ``People that were known terrorists had been turned around in Panama and sent back before reaching our shores. . . .'' BITMAP ``has already proven successful.'' And that is according to the former Director of ICE.

BITMAP does not just ID suspected terrorists, however. It also identifies drug smugglers, sex offenders, murderers, child predators, gang members like MS-13, and people with active warrants and other dangerous backgrounds.

My bill will enhance American and foreign law enforcement's ability to keep our citizens safe by identifying threats at the earliest possible stage. Simply put, it will help stop dangerous individuals who want to bring harm to the American people.

Threats to America, whether through terrorism, human trafficking, or deadly opioids, continue to grow, and we must do everything we can to stop them.

I am proud this legislation passed out of our committee with bipartisan support, and I want to thank Congressman Bill Keating for all of his work on this issue.

Passing this important legislation through the House is a simple step we can take to make our homeland more secure, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Mississippi, but I do have to respectfully disagree with some of his assertions. First of all, this program, BITMAP, was started 7 years ago under the Obama administration. And over the last 7 years, we have obtained sufficient data that would verify the success of the program.

In fact, I can't get into the classified nature of the program. Suffice it to say that we stopped hundreds of known or suspected terrorists from entering the United States under this tried-and-true program.

The Secretary testified before our committee that, on average, 19 known or suspected terrorists try to enter the United States every day. Our solemn obligation is to protect the American people from the threats that we see outside of the United States and do everything we can to stop them from getting into the United States.

What the 9/11 Commission talked about in its report about travel and keeping bad people and bad things out of the United States, is the reason this committee was formed in the first place. And we have heard the stories about ISIS in written materials encouraging followers to cross our southwest border. We talked about the 9/11 Commission. We talked about terrorists' travel strategies. This is one of those strategies, one of those programs that I believe the 9/11 Commission was talking about.

Why not use the best technology we have and use biometrics to identify known or suspected terrorists, MS-13 gang members, child predators, opioid traffickers, all of the bad stuff that can come into this country. When Border Patrol tells me we only know 50 percent of what is coming into the country, why would we not want to use the most innovative technology so that when someone enters this hemisphere under one name and gets up to the Mexico border under another name--just like in the Mollie Tibbetts' killing, slaying, where someone came into the country and changed their identity. This stops the changing of identity up the road into the United States.

Why? Biometrics don't lie. You are who you are. And we know who they are through the great, best technology we have available today. So I believe that being opposed to this legislation really puts the American people at harm.

I hope I am wrong in saying this, because I never want politics to enter this committee: National security should never be political. The terrorists don't check our partisan affiliation. But my concern is that because ICE is in this bill, we are drawing opposition.

Madam Speaker, this is one of the best programs that ICE administers, created under the Obama administration. It deserves and it has earned to be fully authorized by the United States Congress, and I ask that all of my colleagues support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary step to continue to move the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process forward under regular order.

On June 28, the House passed H.R. 6157, the FY 2019 Defense Appropriations bill by a vote of 359-49. The Senate took up that bill and added the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill and has now sent H.R. 6157 back to the House.

With the appointment of these conferees, the House and the Senate may begin to resolve the differences with the goal of passing H.R. 6157 before the end of the fiscal year. As such, I strongly support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees. As the House and Senate come together to find a path forward on funding the Federal Government, we will, no doubt, be faced with tough choices and fierce disagreements. But we agree that these two bills, funding the Department of Defense and funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, are two of the most important bills that we handle and, frankly, the two largest as well. They deserve thorough consideration and fair discussion amongst the conferees.

We are all committed to getting this done and getting this done right. As we are currently doing with our first package of appropriations bills, this conference committee will negotiate fairly and respectfully to reach a final agreement on funding these critical Defense and Labor-HHS programs.

I want to remind the body that, of course, we have done this before. We have begun in different places, and, to my friend's credit, we have worked together, have found common ground three times in a row, and have been able to support the final bill. It certainly would be my hope that we are able to do that again.

So I just want people in the conference committee to feel free to bring up any topics that they think are important, and that we have a free and full discussion, and, hopefully, work ourselves to a resolution.

I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct conferees, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if my friend is prepared to close.

Correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to begin by thanking my friends. They always bring interesting points to the floor, particularly the ranking member of the full committee, but also my friend Mr. Scott. I just want to assure them that, when we sit down to bargain, we will bargain in good faith, and all these things will--and I think appropriately should be--on the table and open for a fair discussion.

I do point out to the body that, frankly, when we have done this before, we have been able to find common ground and been able to arrive at a final solution that had substantial bipartisan support for the last 3 years. I am confident that we can do that again this year and, frankly, it is very much my hope that we can do it before the end of the fiscal year.

I think that is important that the domestic programs that we fund in the Labor-HHS bill, which my friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, so ably advances and defends, that we do that without having a continuing resolution, something that interrupts the progress. That is even more important in the area of defense, that we avoid a continuing resolution.

So I think there will be considerable goodwill on both sides and a considerable effort to come together in common ground.

Having said that, I continue to oppose instructions to the committee because the conferees have proven before they can work together to produce a product. It is my hope that we will be able to do that.

So I urge the body to reject the effort to instruct the conferees, and I invite my friends, as I know they will, to sit down in good faith to work with us to arrive at a bill that both sides of the rotunda and both parties can support in substantial numbers.

I look forward to that process with my good friend the ranking member from Connecticut and, obviously, with my good friend the full committee ranking member as well. I have every confidence that, working together in good faith, as we have in the past, we will get to a place that we both can be pleased with, if not perfectly satisfied with.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the instruction, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct, but also to call for the inclusion of one specific improvement to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that makes it clear that taxpayer money cannot be spent to arm teachers.

Two weeks ago, news reports revealed the Department of Education was considering allowing States to use Federal education funding to purchase firearms and firearms training for teachers. The Department has since confirmed those reports.

Last week, I was joined by 172 Members of the House to call on Secretary DeVos to issue formal guidance prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to put guns in classrooms. In response, the Secretary said she has no intention of taking any action on this issue.

In refusing to act, the Secretary is setting a new and dangerous policy. That is, the Secretary is allowing funding provided under Title IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act to be used to arm teachers. This move by the Secretary is unprecedented, as Federal funding has never been allowed for this purpose.

Secretary DeVos has pointed the finger at Congress and expressly called on us to clarify our intent, but congressional intent is already clear. Under the law, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant Program authorized under Title IV-A affords local leaders the flexibility to tailor investments to meet local needs. It was designed to support a wide range of programs to help schools create a better learning environment by expanding students' access to important services like mental healthcare, art, and STEM classes, and new technology that better prepares students for the future.

However, when writing and enacting the law, Congress never contemplated such flexibility allowing the purchase of firearms. In fact, Congress denounced the presence of firearms in schools in a section in ESEA that promotes programs that foster ``the creation and maintenance of a school environment free of weapons.''

Mr. Speaker, Congress' opposition to taxpayer-funded guns in schools was reiterated in the STOP School Violence Act, which the House passed last March in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida, shooting. This legislation, which passed 407-10, explicitly prohibits the program funds from being used for the purchase of firearms or firearms training. Even the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Nielsen has acted through executive authority to prohibit grant funds specifically intended for school security from being used to purchase guns.

Secretary DeVos has both the authority and the responsibility to follow legal precedent, congressional intent,

as well as common sense about gun violence by prohibiting taxpayer- funded guns in schools. But seeing as the Secretary is shirking that responsibility, Congress must take immediate action to protect students and teachers from a policy that will recklessly endanger students and teachers.

The final version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill must make clear that no taxpayer money can be used to arm teachers. This has not been a partisan issue in the past and should not be a partisan issue today.