[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11580-S11581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 4047

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 664, S. 4047. I 
ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, 
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have a 
number of objections on our side. On behalf of at least five Members in 
this caucus, I will be constrained to object, and I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak a moment on the 
bill, if I may.
  The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires the Transportation 
Security Agency to develop a biometric security card for port workers 
that would be used to limit access to sensitive areas within a seaport. 
To satisfy this law, TSA is developing a transportation worker 
identification credential--we call it TWIC--card. The law requires that 
the Secretary issue this card to an individual requesting it, unless he 
determines that the individual poses a terrorism security risk or if 
they have been convicted of treason, terrorism, sedition, or espionage.
  To fulfill this requirement of the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act, the Department of Homeland Security has drafted regulations that 
bar certain criminals from receiving these transportation worker 
identification credentials. Specifically, the Department of Homeland 
Security proposed regulations that would permanently bar from our ports 
criminals convicted of espionage, sedition, treason, terrorism, crimes 
involving transportation security, improper transport of hazardous 
material, unlawful use of an explosive device, murder, violations of 
the RICO Act where one of the above crimes is a predicate act, and 
conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
  It would also bar recent felons, those convicted within the last 7 
years, or incarcerated in the last 5 years, from working in secure 
areas of U.S. ports, if they have been convicted of any of these 
felonies: assault with intent to murder, kidnaping or hostage taking, 
rape or aggravated sexual abuse, unlawful use of a firearm, extortion, 
fraud, bribery, smuggling, immigration violations, racketeering, 
robbery, drug dealing, arson, or conspiracy to commit any of these 
crimes.
  These proposed regulations were developed in consultation and 
coordination with the Departments of Justice and Transportation to 
identify individuals who have a propensity to engage in unlawful 
activity, activity that places our ports at risk. Further, these 
regulations are nearly identical to the regulations that govern those 
who have access to our airports and who are involved with transporting 
hazardous material in the United States. These prohibitions are crucial 
because individuals who engage in the type of unlawful activity 
described in the proposed regulations have a greater likelihood to 
engage in activity that puts American ports at risk.
  Our law enforcement officials understand this risk. They understand 
the threat our ports face with traditional crimes, particularly 
organized crimes, when they work with terrorists. For example, just 
recently the FBI apprehended a member of the Russian mafia attempting 
to sell missiles to an FBI agent he thought was acting as a middleman 
for terrorists. Joseph Billy, Jr., the FBI's top counterterrorism 
official, recently commented that the FBI ``is continuing to look at a 
nexus'' between organized crime and terrorists, and that they ``are 
looking at this very aggressively.''
  The threat is not only criminals working directly with terrorists, it 
is criminals looking the other way when a suspect container comes 
through the port. Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent and now a 
professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, outlined the 
concern very clearly:

       It's an invitation to smuggling of all kinds. Instead of 
     bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from 
     bringing in five kilograms of plutonium?


[[Page S11581]]


  A criminal in one of our ports may think he is just helping his 
buddies smuggle in drugs, but inadvertently he may be helping to 
smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States.
  Earlier this year I offered an amendment to address this threat and 
ensure that serious felons are kept out of our ports. My amendment 
would have codified in statute the proposed regulations. The amendment 
passed unanimously and was included in the Senate-passed version of the 
Safe Port Act. Unfortunately, behind closed doors in the conference 
committee this amendment was almost completely gutted. The bill went 
from having language which prohibited 20 serious felonies that put our 
ports at risk to a list of just four--felonies so rare as to make the 
conference report language meaningless. I was extremely dismayed to see 
this language was stripped. I cannot understand who would oppose 
language that would ban serious felons from secure areas in American 
ports.
  The ranking member of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from 
Hawaii, has stated in the Congressional Record that he supported the 
original DeMint language. I understand the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, the Senator from Alaska, also supported the DeMint language. 
I am at a bit of a loss to conclude who in the Senate opposed this 
strong homeland security provision. Today the Senator from North Dakota 
said several of his colleagues did, but we don't know who they are.
  While there does not seem to be a Senator who is willing to admit to 
opposing the provision, the longshoremen's labor union is more than 
happy to take credit for gutting the provision. Last month the 
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, in their newsletter, 
claimed credit for killing the provision. They stated:

       Congress will return after the election in a ``lame duck'' 
     session and work through part of November and December. We 
     have heard rumors that Senator DeMint is particularly angry 
     with the [union's] successful lobbying effort to strip his 
     anti-labor provision. He may attempt to amend another piece 
     of legislation, so the union will stay on guard to protect 
     its members' interests.

  Apparently they have, as we have seen today by the objection to this 
very commonsense measure. The unions are not stopping at just fighting 
legislation that I am proposing here to keep serious felons out of our 
port workforce. They are gearing up to mount a legal battle against the 
proposed regulations as well.
  In response to a Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject, the 
union stated that the proposed regulations were ``double jeopardy'' and 
``unconstitutional.'' This is a clear indication that they have a legal 
challenge in mind. It seems clear now that once the regulations become 
final, they are going to take the Department of Homeland Security to 
court and that the proposed regulations are going to be bogged down in 
lengthy legal battles likely for years.
  The consequence will be that as we continue to fight this global war 
on terror, America's ports will be staffed by serious felons. Some may 
be tempted to come to the defense of the longshoremen with various so-
called concerns: These individuals have paid their debt to society; 
barring these individuals is going to gut our port workforce; or that 
the crimes listed are somehow not related to homeland security.
  These concerns are plain wrong. I don't disagree that convicted 
felons should be given a second chance. I hope they get back on their 
feet and become productive members of their communities. What I don't 
agree with is that we should give them a pass, literally and 
figuratively, to access the most secure areas of America's port 
infrastructure. When they are fresh out of prison, we should not trust 
them with the most vulnerable areas of our ports.
  Second, I have heard that barring these individuals will empty the 
ranks of the port workforce. The facts don't bear this out. When the 
Department of Homeland Security issued nearly 350,000 ID cards for 
HAZMAT truckdrivers and subjected them to the same background check as 
I propose putting in the law, only 3,100 were disapproved, less than 1 
percent. The workforce in the United States is elastic enough that we 
can pick up the few thousand longshoremen jobs opening up because the 
criminals in the port workforce had to be fired.
  Finally, some are maintaining these are not serious crimes. I want 
someone to come down here and tell me which individuals he wants 
working at his local port--murderers, extortionists, drug dealers, 
arsonists, document forgers? I want to hear the rationale for stopping 
this important bill.
  The list that the Transportation Security Agency came up with is a 
list of serious felons who represent a serious threat. It is going to 
keep these dangerous criminals out of our ports.
  The bottom line is this: This bill applies nearly the same 
protections to seaports that already applies to our airports. It is a 
regime that has been successful. It will make our ports safer by 
keeping individuals who have shown a willingness to break the law out 
of our ports. This is very important. We can spend all the money in our 
treasury trying to screen cargo, and we have appropriated or approved a 
whole lot of money to secure our ports. But if we don't screen the 
people who work at our ports, we cannot expect to have effective port 
security. It is very unfortunate today that my Democratic colleague has 
taken this commonsense provision and objected to its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. That is a good thing because I had finished my talk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. DeWine. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________