The U.S. House of Representatives is preparing to consider a measure that would once again extend the reach of the federal government into areas best left to states, localities, and families.
The bill in question, H.R. 4919, sounds innocuous enough—who could object to efforts to find lost citizens suffering from Alzheimer’s and autism? But when considering new federal laws, the most important question often is not, “Is this a good idea?” Rather, policymakers need to first ask, “Is this a job for the federal government?”
When it comes to tracking lost individuals, the answer clearly must be no.
What the Bill Does
H.R. 4919 proposes to reauthorize and expand an expired federal program, the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program.
If passed, the bill would create a $2 million grant program, administered by the Department of Justice, for the purpose of doling out federal funds to “health care agencies, state and local law enforcement agencies, or public safety agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist such entities in planning, designing, establishing, or operating locally based, proactive programs to prevent wandering and locate missing individuals” who suffer from various forms of mental impairment.
Funds would also be available to “provide education and training” to “school personnel, clinicians, and the public” for the purpose of improving safety and “reduc[ing] the incidence of wandering,” as well as to provide “prevention and response training and emergency protocols” for “school administrators, staff, and families.”
The thrust of the proposed law, however, focuses on tracking devices, and would require the DOJ to award grants for the purpose of “designing, establishing, and operating locative tracking technology programs” for individuals suffering from developmental disabilities.
Under the auspices of this program, individuals or caregivers would be able to apply for a tracking device, and local organizations could receive funding to operate tracking networks to monitor them.
Expansion of Government
H.R. 4919 is well motivated, but it proposes a needless federal intervention. Companies already market a variety of affordable, readily available devices for families or guardians who may wish to purchase one for a dependent.
These devices range from bracelet wearables for children that feature the ability to call their parents if they are lost, to more conventional trackers that can be placed in a bag or pocket. And for those able to carry a phone, virtually every cellphone on the market can be used as a GPS tracker.
What the bill promises is the potential to make these devices free for consumers. And while the grant program would sunset after five years, consider the inevitable political pressure on lawmakers to renew the program when funding dries up and the numerous programs it created are threatened with termination. If lawmakers pass this once, they are likely to do so again, and again.
Make no mistake: If this bill is enacted into law, a lame-duck Congress likely will have created yet another federal entitlement program.
Just what that entitlement program would look like, nobody can say with any certainty. When it comes to details like what devices will be available, who exactly would be eligible to receive them, and what agencies or entities will have access to the highly personal location data they will generate, the proposed law is virtually silent.
Rather than answer these difficult questions, the bill delegates the responsibility for defining the scope of the program to the attorney general, who is tasked with “establish[ing] standards and best practices relating to the use of tracking technology.”
Liberty Concerns
The bill places few limits on the rulemaking authority of the DOJ in this space. Federal standards must respect the “civil rights and liberties” of people being tracked, including their Fourth Amendment rights. Data collected must be used “solely for the purpose of preventing injury or death.”
Nevertheless, as open-ended and ill-defined as this proposal is, the risk of potential civil liberties and privacy violations are significant, and cannot be ignored.
Other critical questions are left entirely to the discretion of federal officials. Should the federal government finance the monitoring and use of tracking devices placed on someone over their objection? The bill doesn’t say. It only mandates that DOJ “establish a complaint and investigation process” when such situations arise.
What role should state agencies play in administering these programs? H.R. 4919 requires only that the the DOJ “determine the[ir] role.” With that boundless legislative language, federal officials could decide that states have no role to play whatsoever.
H.R. 4919 affords the Justice Department all of four months to resolve these complex and crucial questions.
Any individual, nonprofit, local law enforcement organization, or school that takes federal funds will have to agree to abide by rushed, micro-managerial “best practices” developed by federal bureaucrats. It’s another means for the federal government to expand its power and influence into areas best reserved to the states and the people.
Taking a Step Back
H.R. 4919 has already passed the Senate, but the House of Representatives would be wise to view this proposal with skepticism.
While it comes from a good place, establishing a tracking program like this is hardly a national priority, and should not be rushed through in an unaccountable lame-duck session.
Instead, Congress should let states, localities, and private organizations address matters like these that are, inherently, local and personal concerns. To borrow a phrase, Congress does not need to make a federal case out of this.
