Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7868-H7871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 1, IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT
OF 2007

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of
rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Homeland Security, I
move to take from the Speaker's table the

[[Page H7869]]

bill (H.R. 1) to provide for the implementation of the recommendations
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and
agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Blackburn moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be
instructed to agree to section 1455 of the Senate amendment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). Pursuant to clause 7 of rule
XXII, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The motion to instruct would require the Secretary to deny a
Transportation Worker Identification Credential, a TWIC, to any
applicant who has been convicted of certain crimes.
This card is the access card to our Nation's critical and sensitive
port and maritime facilities. We have over 750,000 workers who access
our ports daily. TWIC was created to ensure that they are all screened
and that they pose no threat of terrorism.
Now, our motion would specify that individuals convicted of certain
crimes, such as treason, espionage, sedition or murder, would be
permanently disqualified from receiving a TWIC card. This would further
specify interim disqualifying crimes, such as smuggling, arson,
kidnapping or robbery, that would disqualify an individual within a
certain timeframe of conviction.
This provision provides the right balance between ensuring that our
ports are safe while ensuring that we have the workers we need to get
the job done in a timely manner.
We all agree that protecting our ports is one of the most critical
duties that we have. All the guns, all the gates, all the guards in the
world, every bit of that is useless if we give an individual a TWIC
card to walk right past them.
This would ensure that the screening of these individuals is
thorough, and that it is complete. While some may argue that this will
unnecessarily disqualify too many individuals, we have already provided
for an appeal and waiver process elsewhere to ensure that individuals
can apply for a TWIC despite their past history.
This section that we are offering today in this motion to instruct
passed the Senate 94-2. Our motion to instruct would accede to the
language in the Senate provision.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House has
passed its own language as it relates to the issuance of the TWIC
cards. We have negotiated for the last 2 months with our Senate
colleagues and, for the most part, we have a bipartisan agreement on
the issuance of the transportation security cards to convicted felons.
That agreement talks about many of the things my colleague referenced
in the report. It talks about treason, it talks about sedition, it
talks about espionage, all those things.
Therefore, I think carrying it to the level that my colleague would
want to carry it is not in the spirit of the conference report that we
are negotiating with our colleagues in the Senate.
It is bipartisan. We have been meeting for 2 months to craft a
language. It's good language.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the body's
attention, we had last week on July 10, a front page article in The
Hill talking about this.
The concerns with this clause, I know that this program, TSA is going
to roll this TWIC card program out on September 1. I would hope that
our security is of such importance to us that we would not weaken this
program.
We know that the security of our ports is important. We want to make
certain that the workers that we are sending in to these ports have
gone through the appropriate clearances. We know that these are
critical and sensitive areas. Why would we want to give a card to
someone who has been convicted of crimes such as treason, espionage,
sedition or murder?
I do not think that the American people want to see those individuals
inspecting the cargo that's coming into these ports. We hear so much
about security and food security, the issues that surround that. We are
hearing about the security of human trafficking that is going through
our ports. For goodness sakes, we want to be certain that the people
that are walking into those ports to work every day are not convicted
of these serious crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1145

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I now yield as much time as she may
consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished chairman of
the full committee, and to the Speaker, my good friend from Tennessee,
we are here on this floor for a very serious deliberation.
Over the last 10 days we have heard a number of responses from the
administration; and I have often said that if and when, if and when
there was a turn of events that would generate a horrific and terrorist
act against this Nation, it is the Members of the United States
Congress and committees with names like Homeland Security and Defense
that would have to be called to the carpet.
None of us, none of us, Mr. Speaker, have any desire to be on the
list of those who are derelict in their duties. In fact, Chairman
Thompson has been enormously zealous in constant oversight of the
Department of Homeland Security, constant briefings, and I am reminded
of one that occurred in the last 10 days where the term ``gut feeling''
was introduced to us. Out of that particular briefing, many of us
tightened our belts and began to reflect on the oversight hearings and
the legislative initiatives that will respond and have responded to
that gut reaction. So the dilemma, or the discussion today, as we bring
up the 9/11 bill, may I remind my colleagues, is about terrorism. It is
about the thought and the fear that Americans have of who lives amongst
us.
The TWIC card, as Transportation Security Administration is about to
issue forward with regulations, is one of the elements to define who is
in this country that would want to do us harm. Let me say this again,
Mr. Speaker. It is a card to define who wants to harm us.
As the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee,
Critical Infrastructure, we live every day with those individuals who
are receiving identification, those at airports. We have done oversight
about employees' ingress and egress, about the back side of the
airport. We are well aware, my colleague Representative Sanchez,
Loretta Sanchez and her committee, well aware of the massiveness of the
Nation's ports. We could give you a list of times that we have been to
look at the intimacies of the port. But what my good friend is speaking
about clearly has no direct relationship to ensuring America's security
and releasing or eliminating the fear that Americans have about the
next-door terrorist cell. This amendment, this motion to instruct is
not constructive. For what it says is that age-long workers, union
workers who through an early lifetime had the ups and downs of a
criminal record, have now been cast as terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in opening the doors to criminal
elements. I don't disrespect the fact that we are concerned about
murderers and others who have done dastardly deeds. But what you are
talking about is taking an age-old seasoned port worker, union member,
and eliminate their livelihood by projecting onto them the question of
whether or not they are in line to perpetrate a terrorist act.
The TWIC card is an identification document to ensure that those who
are in possession of that card have no connection to any elements of
terrorism. It is to safeguard the American public.

[[Page H7870]]

It is not, it is not, if you will, the sledgehammer on hardworking,
taxpaying Americans. And let me be very clear: The TWIC card is no
wimp. There is a serious review process that goes forward that takes
into account everyone's record and includes any elements that would
lead us to believe that this person might perpetrate a terrorist act.
I respect the gentlelady from Tennessee because I know that she is,
as we all are, warriors against terrorism, and this Congress has to be
united on this factor. I would raise the question, however, as to
whether or not these modifications of a TWIC card that has already been
vetted directed only at eliminating, firing, and terminating lifelong
employees with strong records that have shown no inclination and no
past history to terrorist acts is the appropriate direction to take.
I hope that we can join in this body, as Chairman Thompson has
encouraged us as members of his committee, to focus in a bipartisan way
on solutions to major problems: Critical infrastructure, nuclear and
biological possibilities, the reconstruction of FEMA, the interests in
protecting our ports and borders north and south. This is how, an
intelligence response that shows who is here as it relates to terrorist
cells and who is here to do damage. These are the key elements, along
with the 9/11 bill, that lay down the underpinnings, the framework of
the survival of this Nation. Let us not fall upon divisiveness in the
redesign of a card that has been fully vetted in its structure, that
will do what it is intended to do, which is to weed out the terrorists
and to allow hardworking Americans to continue to work and provide for
their families. They, too, are patriots. And we as patriots and lovers
of this country must stand united together in doing the right thing to
secure America.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi spoke of
the compromise language, and the compromise language does not give our
TSA the tool in its toolbox that it needs. Indeed, the compromise
language would weaken that tool that they need in that toolbox to be
certain that they are giving Americans the certainty that they want to
view our Nation's ports security with. They want to know that certainly
the people that are coming into those ports have our Nation's best
interests at heart. And I fully believe that they do not want
individuals who are convicted of these crimes of treason, espionage,
sedition, murder and, further, interim disqualifying crimes such as
smuggling, arson, kidnapping or robbery to be in there watching the
cargo and the transportation that comes into our ports and maritime
facilities. Certainly, this is a regulation that TSA uses now with our
truck drivers who are moving hazardous material. So the compromise
language would take a tool out of that toolbox that TSA uses to give
Americans the certainty that they are doing their best.
Now, with respect to the question from the gentlelady from Texas, and
I appreciate the hard work that she does at the Homeland Security
Committee, but this would provide only a 7-year lookback, and I think
that that is important to note in that screening process. But at the
same time, Mr. Speaker, we want to be certain that screening is
thorough, that it is complete, and that there is certainty given to the
American public.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I would
like to say to my colleague from Tennessee, this bipartisan agreement
was worked out in the spirit of making sure that those individuals who
work in various capacities in high-risk areas, that they are, in fact,
not security risks. So what we have done, we have taken espionage, we
have taken sedition, we have taken treason, any felony crime of
terrorism, crime involving a transportation security incident, improper
transportation of hazardous material, unlawful possession, use, sale,
distribution, manufacture, purchase, receipt, transfer, shipping,
transporting, import, export, storage of or dealing with an explosive
device, we have gone into great detail in defining those disqualifying
areas.
In addition to that, we have laid out interim disqualifying criminal
offenses that go toward unlawful possession, sale, manufacture,
purchase, distribution of firearms; extortion, bribery, smuggling,
immigration violations; distribution, possession with intent to
distribute or importation of controlled substance; arson, kidnapping,
rape, assault with intent to kill; robbery, conspiracy, fraudulent
entry into a seaport, a violation of the Racketeering Influence and
Corrupt Organization Act. Mr. Speaker, we have gone in great detail to
list as many offenses as we could.
Now, from what I understand from the gentlelady's motion that we are
debating, the only issue is that you don't want the Secretary of
Homeland Security to have the ability to look at these things and say
whether or not they should be modified. Now, if we are wrong in our
interpretation, that is fine, but as we look upon what you have before
us today, that is the only thing.
If we can't trust the people who run the Department to make certain
administrative decisions, then who can we trust? And it is in this
spirit that we left that particular modification language there for the
Secretary to look at any unforeseen crime that may or may not have been
excluded in this disqualifying criminal offense.
So clearly, Mr. Speaker, it was a bipartisan effort, and we wish to
offer it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was just making his point,
and in part of that he is right, but the important part of this is that
what we have to do is be certain that a Secretary doesn't delete these
provisions. And if you are going to give them that flexibility and if
they delete it, then you have that hole that is there. So, because of
that, we need it in statute to be sure that it is not altered.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Our Secretary of Homeland Security is
appointed by the President. I would think that he would appoint the
best qualified person, someone who would have the interests of this
country at heart every second that he or she may be in that position.
So to take the ability of an individual who is running a department
from making certain decisions is not in our best interests.
We should not micromanage the Department of Homeland Security. We
should let the Secretary of Homeland Security run the Department. He
should have the administrative authority to do it. This would not be in
the best interests of us. We do not do this in other secretarial
departments.
And so, again, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of identifying crimes
that are disqualifying, but notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary
should have some discretion over running his or her Department
regardless of what that Department may be, this is the bipartisan
spirit in the conference that we reached.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette).

{time} 1200

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I speak on this motion with the greatest
respect for the gentlelady from Tennessee. But I would say that in my
prior life, before coming to the Congress I was a prosecuting attorney,
and I was responsible for sending a lot of people to prison.
I also had a responsibility to go down and visit people that I'd sent
to prison. And I remember the first visit that I made down to one of
the prisons in Ohio, and there's these trustees outside the prison
gates with white stripes on the side, and they were given trusted
positions within the prison.
And I said, who are the trustees? How do you get to be qualified to
be a trustee? And they said, well, they're murderers. And I said, what
do you mean, they're murderers? They said, they're murderers.
What we find is that in the crime of murder, most murders in this
country are committed in crimes of passion, a husband murders a wife, a
wife murders a husband, a boyfriend and so forth and so on. But they
are also the least likely people to ever commit crime again.
And what concerns me about the requirement of receding to the Senate
provision in this is that it ignores the opportunity for
rehabilitation. It ignores the opportunity that people

[[Page H7871]]

make mistakes, and they're not a threat to national security, and they
can be good productive people. They can work in our ports.
And I am concerned that murder is one of the automatic disqualifiers.
I am also concerned that the other list of crimes that have waiting
periods of 5 to 7 years, they have nothing to do, in my mind, with
terrorism or port security.
And I am all for a system where the Secretary or even in law the
Congress of the United States says, you know what, if you committed a
crime of violence we're going to take an extra look at you; but to be
automatically disqualified, either forever or for a considerable period
of time, I think disturbs me.
I intend to vote against the motion. I respect the gentlelady's
opinion and why she's brought this motion, but sadly, I can't agree
with it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, the appeals and waivers
process was put in place for a reason, and that is why it is there, and
that's why you've got the look-back provision and why it is stated as
such.
Again, I will reemphasize the point. We don't want to do something
that is going to weaken a tool that is in the TSA toolbox for being
certain that we have the necessary security at our ports; that we know
who is there and we know the reasons they are there, that we know that
they have the appropriate clearances for being there.
And with all due respect to the chairman and the chairwoman who have
worked on this legislation, our wording here, acceding to the language
that passed over in the Senate, 94-2, would be certain that we have in
statute something that is going to give our citizens the security that
we have done our job.
It is the responsibility of this body to be certain that we have this
national security interest at heart for the people of this good Nation,
and certainly this language is one step in so doing.
And at this time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Mississippi has
no further speakers and is ready to yield back, then I will do so. But
I want to be certain I have the right to close on this.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve at this point.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional
speaker. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman. To my good friend
from Tennessee, let us be very clear that homeland security is a
bipartisan issue.
What the chairman has indicated is that we are yielding to the
Secretary of Homeland Security for a slight opportunity to be able to
modify, if you will, in his reasoned judgment, that deals with securing
America. We are not ignoring sedition and treason. I want my colleagues
to know that.
But the individuals that will now be subjected to the TWIC card,
which costs 137 dollars and 700,000 people will be processed the first
year, and 1.5 million persons the second year, these are our neighbors,
individuals who have been working in this capacity who have nothing in
their background that would suggest that they are terrorists.
The gentlelady's motion would literally shut down America's ports.
Commerce would come to a standstill. As my good friend from Ohio has
said, people rehabilitate. Give the Secretary the opportunity to use
his judgment and to use his discretion to be able to secure America on
the real causes of sedition and treason.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________