GovernmentExecutive.com

Opposition to a Homeland Security Department program that screens travelers entering the United States continues to grow and now includes international travel associations that are calling for the program to be suspended.

Outrage has continued to mount since Homeland Security posted a notice on the automated targeting system in the Federal Register last month The notice said the system is used for risk assessments on travelers coming into the country by land, sea and air. Opponents claim that the department kept details of the program hidden from the public for years.

"Privacy is not a niche issue," said Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's not a liberal issue; it's not a conservative issue; it's not a special interest."

In the latest twist, international travel associations have signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The U.S.-based Business Travel Coalition wrote the letter and has spearheaded a campaign to get organizations to endorse it.

"We are deeply concerned that such a far-reaching and invasive screening of millions of business travelers entering and exiting the U.S. could do significant personal harm to them, and reduce the productivity of the organizations that field business travelers," states the letter, which likely will be sent to Chertoff at the end of this week.

Signatories so far include the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies, Guild of Travel Management Companies, Institute of Travel Management and the Netherlands Association of Travel Management. Three U.S.-based travel organizations also have signed the letter, along with 32 companies, some of which are international.

Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said the program appears to closely resemble an airline passenger-screening program known as CAPPS II that was killed due to public and congressional outrage.

"It's a ham-handed, tone-deaf approach to security that sunk CAPPS II and continues to get them in trouble," Mitchell said. "The feeling it leaves people is that if the Department of Homeland Security is going to behave like this in its infant years, what's it going to behave like when it becomes an adult?"

Chertoff offered a strong defense of the program in an interview with CongressDaily. "To hear people are outraged baffles me," he said. "I totally reject that this has been kept secret." He said the program is a critical tool for U.S. border agents to protect the country.

The department, however, has extended the time for public comment until Dec. 29.

Meanwhile, a debate has erupted over whether the program violates a section of the fiscal 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill that prohibits using funds "to develop or test algorithms assigning risk to passengers" whose names are not on government watch lists.

"Clearly the law prohibits testing or developing computer programs" like the automated targeting system, said House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking Democrat Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn. But A Homeland Security spokesman said the department believes the prohibition only applies to another traveler screening program called Secure Flight.

COMMENTS

• When I started working as a Customs inspector over 20 years ago, everyone entering the United States had to undergo immigration and customs inspection. Some were quickly sent on their way, while others were referred for a more intensive inspection. However, once the government tried to expedite the traffic flow by setting up "red" and "green" lanes, for those with something to declare, and those with nothing to declare, it laid the foundation for this present mess. Once we started with "selectivity," and began stopping only a handful of passengers, the vast majority who entered the United States were largely unscreened and uninspected. Of course, the ones who were stopped wondered why they were selected, and claimed to be victims of discrimination and racial profiling. To eliminate these complaints, and to effectively protect this country, we need to go back to the old system, and stop everyone. This way, no one can complain about discrimination, or preferential treatment. This is vitally important, especially given the greater threat we are now facing from terrorism (remember 9/11?), as well as the ever present but increasing threat from international organized crime (drug trafficking, human smuggling, fraud, etc.). If it takes longer to clear immigration and customs, so be it. That's just the price we all have to pay for national security. GovExec.com reader Posted December 15, 2006 2:42 PM
• As an individual who does a lot of foreign travel, I have no problem with a system that is designed to speed passage through immigration. I believe that prescreening entrants to the country is far better than treating the vast majority of law abiding citizens as potential terrorists. I would add one provision that when serious mistakes are made, there should be a mechanism for redress and in these cases the traveler should have full access to his records. John Davis Posted December 13, 2006 10:13 AM
• National security isn't a liberal or conservative issue, either. I don't understand the opposition to using a program that will make screening more "intelligent." Crossing a national border is an event where personal privacy is, and must be, compromised. GovExec.com reader Posted December 13, 2006 8:50 AM