I will be on this thread as much as I can. Looks to me like the long knoves will be out. I am hoping the democrats have misunderestimated Gonzales, too.
That's long KNIVES. I really need more coffee.
I myself keep misunderestimating the dims. Every time I think they've reached bottom, they bring out the shovels and start digging deeper.
Check out this portion of a transcript from Congress
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s102501.html
Congressional Record: October 25, 2001 (Senate)
Page S10990-S11060
section 1012
Mr. HOLLINGS. I have a number of questions about the substance, scope
and procedure of section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. I am
concerned that there are some significant issues which this provision
has not addressed, notwithstanding its noble intentions. Would the
gentleman be able to clarify some of these issues for me?
Mr. LEAHY. I will do my best to clarify the intent and operation of
this section for the gentleman.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Would the gentleman please explain how the Secretary of
DOT will determine whether an individual seeking an original or renewed
license presents a security risk?
Mr. LEAHY. The Secretary will rely upon the background records check
to be done by the Justice Department. Any further analysis to be done
by the Secretary on this issue should be explained following a
Congressional directive to do so, in regulations issued by the
Secretary for notice and comment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Does the section make clear what standards will be
applied to determine if a security risk is presented by an individual?
Mr. LEAHY. At this time the section does not and that matter should
be clarified in subsequent legislation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am concerned that the review process could be delayed
and a person seeking renewal of a hazmat license could be unable to
work due to matters beyond his or her control.
Mr. LEAHY. The gentleman is correct. Regulations need to be issued by
the Secretary specifying time periods and making it clear that delays
not due to the applicant should not force him to be out of work and
that his existing hazmat license will remain in effect pending
completion of the security risk review process.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am troubled by the lack of due process protections
for the applicant. What is the gentleman's opinion on this subject?
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the gentleman. The section needs to be
clarified by legislation and regulations issued making clear that any
applicant denied a hazmat license because of a security risk will be
advised of the reasons for such denial and given an opportunity to
present any comments he or she deems appropriate. We need to provide
the applicant with a right to challenge the Secretary's decision and
insure due process is protected.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Finally, isn't there a concern that foreign drivers
transporting hazmat present an equal, if not a greater, security risk
than that presented by U.S. drivers? If so, how will we deal with
foreign drivers because they do not appear to be covered by section
1012.
Mr. LEAHY. I fully agree with the gentleman. The legislation must
address foreign drivers to cover adequately the security risks
applicable to hazmat transportation.
What do people make of this exchange between these two Democrats? Sounds like they are worried about terrorists being disenfranchised and want to give the same rights under section 1012?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am concerned that the review process could be delayed
and a person seeking renewal of a hazmat license could be unable to
work due to matters beyond his or her control.
Mr. LEAHY. The gentleman is correct. Regulations need to be issued by
the Secretary specifying time periods and making it clear that delays
not due to the applicant should not force him to be out of work and
that his existing hazmat license will remain in effect pending
completion of the security risk review process.