[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE DELAYS AND PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH TSA'S TRANSPORTATION
WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL
=======================================================================
(112-91)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 28, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-376 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
(ii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel One
Kelli Ann Walther, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Screening
Coordination Office, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy, U.S. Coast Guard....................................... 5
Panel Two
Joseph Lawless, Director of Maritime Security, Massachusetts Port
Authority, on behalf of the American Association of Port
Authorities (AAPA)............................................. 14
Lindsay McLaughlin, Legislative Director, International Longshore
and Warehouse Union............................................ 14
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Kelli Ann Walther and Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, joint
statement...................................................... 24
Joseph Lawless................................................... 30
Lindsay McLaughlin............................................... 33
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
United States Coast Guard, insert for the record regarding a
timeframe for the adoption of TWIC card reader requirements.... 9
Joseph Lawless, Director of Maritime Security, Massachusetts Port
Authority, on behalf of the American Association of Port
Authorities (AAPA), letter responding to request from Hon. Rick
Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, for an estimate on what it will cost the ports to
install TWIC card readers, July 12, 2012....................... 20
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council, letter
to Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, July 18, 2012.................................. 40
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A REVIEW OF THE DELAYS AND PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH TSA'S TRANSPORTATION
WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House to
order. Today we are conducting a hearing relating to delays and
problems associated with TSA and Department of Homeland
Security's Transportation Worker Identification Credentials.
I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have two panels
here, I see, and we have quite a busy agenda on a number of
fronts today, so we will try to expedite this process and
hearing as expeditiously as possible.
The order of business will be opening statements by Members
and then we will turn to our witnesses. I will start by
beginning with a brief opening statement.
We are here today many years after we have attempted to
implement putting into place a transportation worker
identification card. This process has gone on since 2002, and,
unfortunately, I can't think of too many programs in Government
that have had more delays, more costs to the taxpayers, and
more incidents of failing to perform than the so-called TWIC
effort.
I am most disappointed that we are here. Time after time,
we have been promised in this hearing room and also in
Government Reform that the program would put in place measures
that would allow us to identify who is going in and out of our
ports in a secure manner and that we would have a card, an
identification card for those workers that had a biometric
capability, both fingerprint and iris, and that we would have
readers that could read those cards.
Now, we are faced with cards having been issued--what, 2
million cards?--and at substantial cost to the Federal
Government. It is estimated this whole program is going to cost
$3.2 billion over 10 years. We still do not have a completion
of the biometric requirements that were asked for years ago,
promised to us in a number of hearings. We do have other
agencies that help set those standards. However, even having
those agencies before us and their commitment to developing
some acceptable standards has yet to result in accomplishment
on the side of iris-recognition biometric factors.
So here we are almost on the eve of renewal and now we are
going to face again the cost of deploying cards that have
become almost a joke with the transportation community. Here is
a Federal ID that cost money that is supposed to help us be
secure, and it is actually not acceptable; some other form of
identification needs to be accompanying that document.
Additionally what baffles me is there are other agencies
who have developed identification credentials over a much
longer period of time, and so we are somewhat reinventing the
wheel and at great public expense and delay in implementing
this.
Finally, what it has done is made the whole process, again,
I think, a disappointment that we cannot issue, again, the card
that would keep us secure, provide adequate identification, and
do it in a cost-efficient manner and in a timely manner.
Many questions remain. I have not been pleased with the
cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security, but we do
have a witness here today. TSA continues to ignore the
committee, and I will consult with my colleagues, if necessary,
to subpoena witnesses from TSA to get their response, which I
think this committee deserves.
So I am not a happy camper this morning with the status,
the delays, and, again, the total ineffectiveness of putting a
very important program together.
I am pleased that we have a representative of the Coast
Guard. They have been cooperative, but I don't want them to be
the fall guy for others who are making decisions at a higher
level, or should be making decisions at a higher level, taking
actions, and having not completed those responsibilities.
So, with that, I will yield to Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I am eager to hear from this morning's
witnesses, and I will be brief in my opening remarks.
In the relatively short history of the Transportation
Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, it is no
understatement to say that the development and implementation
of this program has been, at best, dismal and its record of
achievement disappointing. These problems transcend
Presidential administrations.
Intended by the Congress to be a key element in securing
our Nation's maritime transportation infrastructure from
terrorist attacks, the TWIC program since its inception has
been beset by a litany of problems. Excessive cost,
administrative inefficiencies, technical biometric glitches,
and confusing or burdensome enrollment requirements routinely
surface as common faults expressed by my constituents.
The Government Accountability Office questions whether the
TWIC has actually improved the security of our vessels, ports,
and maritime infrastructure at all. Indeed, considering the
fact that over 2 million TWICs have been issued at a cost to
seafarers and other maritime transportation workers of more
than $250 million, this is sad commentary.
Fortunately, recent events reveal that both the
administration and Congress are now giving the TWIC program the
type of scrutiny it deserves. For example, since March, this
will be the third TWIC oversight hearing. Additionally, this
Tuesday, the House considers legislation to require the
Secretary of Homeland Security to reform the TWIC enrollment
and renewal processes and to require, in total, only one in-
person visit to a designated enrollment center.
The Coast Guard expects to publish regulations in the
Federal Register later this year regarding requirements for
TWIC electronic readers. Moreover, on June 15th, the
administration announced a new policy authorizing 3-year
extensions of expiring TWICs at half the cost of a full 5-year
renewal. This new extended expiration date, or EED, policy has
generally been greeted very positively by mariners and other
transportation workers.
Despite these recent helpful steps, much work remains to be
done. To that extent, I am optimistic that this morning's
hearing will serve up additional recommendations on how the
administration and Congress might best address TWIC's remaining
flaws. My view is that the Congress and especially this
committee shares responsibility with the administration to work
collaboratively to finally deliver the type of security program
first envisioned when Congress passed the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002.
No one contests the underlying security imperative of a
nationwide credential. We have invested too much simply to
throw up our hands and walk away. We have to get it right. But
we do not need an expensive, low-tech flash pass that provides
little security. TWIC should be an inexpensive, high-tech
security credential that contributes to port security.
We need to set aside differences and work with the
administration to finally transform the TWIC program into the
type of comprehensive security shield we have long sought. And,
to that end, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Do other Members seek recognition?
Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Larsen, who is here instead of Mr. Rahall, for
holding this very important hearing.
One of my top priorities since being here in Congress has
been to ensure that our country's ability to move goods is
second to none and that it is done in an efficient and safe
manner. My district serves as a gateway to the country and is
home to workers that serve in both the Port of Long Beach and
Los Angeles, which are the largest ports in this country and
where 40 percent of the Nation's goods travel through.
Recently, this program--and I guess not so recent; it has
been over a period of time, as Mr. Larsen said--but the
concerns have been heightened into issues of intrusiveness of
the process, of the TWIC process; the financial burden that it
is unnecessarily placing on the workers; and then, also, what
is being done with the information obtained by the TWIC
readers. Is that remained exclusively by the Government or
shared with companies, as well?
My sister, I won't say which particular company that she
works for, but I found it interesting that the TWIC cards
expand not only to the dock workers who are on site but to all
of those who are involved in a chain of transportation of
goods.
There is really no reason why TWIC readers have not been
instituted at this point. I had an opportunity to travel on a
CODEL, a Homeland Security CODEL, out of this country, and they
had literally the keypads that were where biometrics could be
used of fingerprints. And this was well over about 2\1/2\ years
ago. So why in this country of great technology we have not
managed--and that was actually an American company; I looked at
the device to see the name of who produced it--why we still
can't get to the point that we fulfill the promise that we made
to the American people of this investment is disappointing.
Finally, the TWIC card report has found--speaking now off
of the readers themselves, but the cardstock is not adequate.
The readers are not ready to be deployable. And now we have
issues of renewals coming up, where people had to go and apply,
then go in person and pick it up, spend all sorts of money for
nothing more than a flash card, which is not appropriate for
the security that we need in this country.
I look forward to the testimony. And I would urge those who
are on behalf of the appropriate agencies that it is imperative
that the workers are involved in the process of how we do
further implementations forward, whether that is extensions,
whether that is deploying of devices, and certainly when we are
talking about the use of private information.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
meeting.
And it just befuddles me why we go through all this--why we
have all these problems for a card. Having worked--well, I
represent the ports in New Jersey, the Port of Newark and the
Port of Elizabeth, and people are always constantly asking me,
are they secure?
But, you know, with this card, I remember working on the
New Jersey license years ago when it was a sham, what we had in
New Jersey, and finally coming through with a card that--it was
an example for the rest of the country. I don't understand why
so long, so much money it takes for us to get a TWIC card. And
I guess that is just my comment. It just befuddles me.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
If no other Members seek recognition, then we will turn to
our panel of witnesses.
And the first panel is: Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, and
he is assistant commandant for prevention policy in the U.S.
Coast Guard. Then we have Ms. Kelli Ann Walther, and she is
acting deputy assistant secretary, Screening Coordination
Office, Office of Policy at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Also, missing--and I will make a note for the record, and,
again, I am going to consult with the Democratic leadership on
a possible subpoena of this witness who did not appear. Mr.
Stephen Sadler, assistant administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration, failed to appear at today's hearing,
June 28, 2012.
With that, I will turn first for opening statements to the
acting deputy assistant secretary of U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Ms. Walther.
Welcome, and you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF KELLI ANN WALTHER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, SCREENING COORDINATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF POLICY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND REAR ADMIRAL JOSEPH
SERVIDIO, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR PREVENTION POLICY, U.S.
COAST GUARD
Ms. Walther. Thank you, Chairman Mica and distinguished
members of the committee. The Department of Homeland Security
appreciates the opportunity to appear before the committee to
highlight our work on the TWIC program. My testimony will
address the role of TWIC as one element of DHS's layered
approach to maritime security and our plans for the program's
future.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution for maritime
security. The maritime environment is complex with many
variables. Our approach to maritime security is also complex,
with multiple layers in place to mitigate threats.
As authorized by Congress, the mission of the TWIC program
is to enable maritime vessel and facility operators to make
informed access control decisions for workers seeking
unescorted access to secure areas. The program provides the
facility or vessel owner and operator with both a means of
verifying the worker's identity and evidence that TSA has
conducted a robust security threat assessment on the individual
presenting a TWIC.
TWIC is a public/private-sector relationship. In most
cases, the Federal Government does not own or operate the
critical infrastructure and key resources in the maritime
domain. Therefore, we work closely with our partners to meet
Homeland Security objectives in a manner consistent with our
operational needs.
DHS conducts the checks and issues the credentials, while
facilities and vessels decide who can access their secure
areas. With TWIC, port security officers across the country
encounter a single recognizable, tamper-resistant credential
rather than hundreds of different identity cards. DHS also
partners with the private sector by participating in regular
meetings with a TWIC Stakeholder Communication Committee,
speaking at conferences, and visiting MTSA regulated sites to
see the TWIC program in operation.
TSA began the national deployment of the TWIC program in
October 2007. Almost 5 years later, DHS has issued over 2
million TWICs to longshoremen, truckers, merchant mariners, and
rail and vessel crewmembers, utilizing 135 enrollment sites
nationwide. Never before has the Federal Government attempted
to conduct security threat assessments and issue a secure
credential on this scale with such a geographically dispersed
population of private-sector workers.
From 2008 to 2011, TSA conducted a TWIC reader pilot to
inform and support the development of a TWIC reader rule. TSA
evaluated the technical performance of the TWIC biometric
reader function at 17 locations across the United States. TSA
was able to collect information on reader performance as well
as assess the operational and business impacts under diverse
field conditions. A final report on the results of this pilot
was delivered to Congress in February 2012.
The TWIC program achieves its mission by conducting uniform
vetting on maritime workers and issuing a tamper-resistant
biometric credential to successful applicants. The actual TWIC
cards contain security features not available on standard ID
badges, which makes them highly resistant to counterfeiting.
The vetting TSA conducts includes checks for ties for terrorism
using the terrorist watch list, an immigration status check,
and a criminal history records check.
On August 30th of this year, TSA will offer eligible TWIC
holders the opportunity to replace their expiring 5-year TWICs
with a 3-year extended-expiration-date card. TSA is offering
this option at $60 to make it more cost-effective for eligible
workers while the TWIC reader rule is pending. Upon expiration
of the 3-year card, all TWIC holders will be required to enroll
for a standard 5-year TWIC.
The implementation of TWIC has provided significant
improvements to security in the maritime environment. Before
TWIC, no standard identity verification or background checks
were conducted on individuals prior to entering secure areas of
our Nation's port facilities and vessels. Owners and operators
had to rely on multiple types of identity documents with wide
variations in their security and issuance processes. Today,
facility owners and vessel owners and operators can rely on a
standardized credential that confirms the holder's identity and
shows evidence that he or she successfully completed a security
threat assessment.
DHS and its partners have taken significant steps to add
layers of security to protect our Nation's ports. These steps
link together information sharing, security, and law
enforcement from across DHS and a multitude of partnerships.
Each layer builds upon and complements the others. TWIC is one
of those layers.
Thank you for this opportunity to update the committee on
this important program. I have submitted written testimony and
respectfully request that it be made part of the hearing
record. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Mica. I will withhold questions until we have heard
from our other witness.
We will now recognize Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio and
welcome him.
You are recognized.
Admiral Servidio. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking
Member Larsen, distinguished members of this committee, I am
Rear Admiral Joe Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy for the United States Coast Guard. I am honored to have
this opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the
Coast Guard's role in enforcing compliance of the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential within the
maritime transportation system and to update you on our ongoing
efforts related to the program.
The TWIC program provides a standardized baseline for the
determination of an individual's suitability to enter the
secure area of a Maritime Transportation Safety Act-regulated
vessel or facility. It is only the first half of a two-part
process. In addition to possessing a valid TWIC, an individual
must be specifically granted access to the secure area by each
individual vessel or facility security officer.
To clarify, the possession of a valid TWIC alone is not
sufficient to gain the holder of that credential access to the
secure areas on vessels or facilities. The TWIC provides a
means by which a vessel or facility security officer can
determine that an individual has been vetted to an established
and accepted standard using a single uniform, tamper-resistant
credential that security personnel have been trained to
examine. It helps inform the security officer's decision to
grant unescorted access to an individual.
To clarify agency roles regarding the TWIC program, TSA is
responsible--the Transportation Security Administration--for
TWIC enrollment, security threat assessment, adjudication, card
production, technology, TWIC issuance, conduct of the TWIC
appeals and waiver processes, and management of Government
support systems. The Coast Guard is responsible for
establishing and enforcing access control requirements at MTSA-
regulated vessels and facilities, which include the
requirements for TWICs at approximately 2,700 regulated
facilities, 12,000 regulated vessels, and 50 regulated Outer
Continental Shelf facilities.
The SAFE Port Act mandates that the Coast Guard conduct two
security inspections annually at MTSA-regulated facilities,
with one inspection being unannounced. During each of these
exams, TWICs are checked by Coast Guard personnel either
visually or by using biometric hand-held readers. Vessels and
facilities within all 42 Captain of the Port zones are in
compliance with TWIC requirements and have been since April 15,
2009.
To maximize the security benefits of the TWIC and
supplemental enforcement efforts, the Coast Guard has deployed
275 biometric hand-held readers to our field units, and we
verified over 230,000 TWICs during our inspections.
The Coast Guard is developing regulations to require the
use of readers to verify TWICs at certain MTSA-regulated
facilities and vessels. Card readers are viewed as a key step
in maximizing security, and we are moving forward as smartly
and quickly as possible with the TWIC reader requirements
notice of proposed rulemaking.
The proposed rulemaking established risk-based requirements
for the enhancement of access control through the use of TWIC
readers without unnecessarily impeding commerce or port
operations. The notice of proposed rulemaking is of the highest
priority to the Coast Guard and DHS and has the personal
attention of the Secretary and is in final clearance.
The Coast Guard continues to work diligently to execute our
TWIC program responsibility: establishing and enforcing access
control requirements at MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities.
We continue to work closely with our partners--our partners in
DHS and State and local agencies and law enforcement and in the
maritime industry--to enhance the TWIC program in a manner that
improves port security while facilitating commerce to the
maximum extent possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and for
your continued support of the Coast Guard. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
And we will start right in with some questions.
First of all, let me go to some of your testimony. You just
testified that you are still finalizing the standards for the
readers?
Admiral Servidio. Yes, Chairman. We are working as quickly
as we can----
Mr. Mica. What is the holdup with it? I mean, first of all,
you testified you issued 275 readers that are out there now; is
that right?
Admiral Servidio. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. Mica. So we have issued those, and we don't have
standards for them fully adopted. Is that also correct?
Admiral Servidio. We do have the capability of using them
and checking the biometrics on them----
Mr. Mica. We have readers out there, yet we have not
finished adopting the standards that are acceptable; is that
correct? Has to be.
Admiral Servidio. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. And what timeframe, for the record, would you
estimate that we would have those standards adopted?
Admiral Servidio. Well, sir, I can't testify with regards
to the standards for the reader. I can talk about the reader--
--
Mr. Mica. You just said in your testimony that you would
have standards for the reader shortly or something?
Admiral Servidio. We are going through the notice of
proposed rulemaking process, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. When--what is that? I mean, let's do the
rulemaking or whatever. How long will it take?
Admiral Servidio. We are in final clearance, sir. We are
informed by the results----
Mr. Mica. You have been in final clearance for years. If
this was a plane, we would have run out of fuel and crashed and
burned.
Admiral Servidio. I share your concerns, sir. The----
Mr. Mica. OK. For the record, what I am trying to get is
some timeframe. Six months, three months, two months, a year?
How long before we actually have a standard and complete the
rulemaking and all the other requirements to have a standard
for these readers?
Admiral Servidio. Chairman, the regulatory process requires
that we solicit comments, and it is----
Mr. Mica. Yes. I know the process, but I am just saying,
give for the record a period of time, because what I am going
to do is haul you in here again at the end of that period and
ask you. So give me some time definition. Six months?
Admiral Servidio. The Secretary has said that it should be
completed by the end of the calendar year. I believe our
Commandant has said that it would be done by the summer, sir.
We are working as quickly as we can----
[Insert for the record from the United States Coast Guard
follows:]
The Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Robert
Papp, testified on March 6, 2012, before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security that
``. . . we're working through the final rule (TWIC
Reader Rule). And that process should take about a year
to get that completed.''
Mr. Mica. So the Secretary said by the end of the year, and
the Commandant said by the end of the summer?
Admiral Servidio. We are working as quickly as possible,
and it has the Secretary's personal attention, sir.
Mr. Mica. Is that Napolitano?
Admiral Servidio. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Well, my role is trying to nail this thing down,
see when we are going to have readers.
Now, the card itself--we have had a series of hearings, and
the card was supposed to have both thumb and iris capability.
And in one of our last hearings over a year ago, we had in the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and they had
told me that it would be that fall that they would have the
standards for iris. That was over a year ago. Then we asked
again in the fall, and they said it would be the beginning of
the year--that would be this year, 2012--that we would have the
iris standards.
Ms. Walther, where are we with that?
Ms. Walther. The Department continues to follow the work of
both GSA and NIST on iris as a biometric.
Mr. Mica. But that doesn't answer my question. They
promised us that, again, a year ago the fall, then the end of
the year, then the beginning of the year it would be early this
year.
This is June. Where are we with the iris? Do you know? Have
they given you, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, have you agreed upon a standard for iris?
Ms. Walther. Sir, I can't answer on behalf of NIST as to
where they are----
Mr. Mica. No, but you are to fulfill having a card. Now,
aren't we going to start issuing more cards? Were they a 5-year
card, Admiral?
Admiral Servidio. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK, they were a 5-year card. So some of those
cards are starting to expire--how soon are they expiring?
October? A couple of months.
So we will start issuing more cards again, won't we,
Admiral? What are we going to do? Give them an extension?
Admiral Servidio. I think Kelli Ann is probably better to--
--
Mr. Mica. OK, Assistant Secretary, are we going to start
reissuing cards in October?
Ms. Walther. Yes, sir----
Mr. Mica. We have to do something. We have expiring cards,
right?
Ms. Walther. Yes, sir. The card----
Mr. Mica. And we don't have an iris standard; is that
right?
Ms. Walther. That is correct----
Mr. Mica. And we don't have reader standards set----
Ms. Walther [continuing]. We do utilize fingerprints.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Is that right? Yes?
Ms. Walther. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Can you see how frustrating this is? And it goes
on and on and on. In many instances, the private sector has
done this. In some other agencies they have actually completed
and have IDs that work.
Now, so at our ports we have issued a card--and there are
275 readers out there. Is that the readers total? Do we know
how many ports they are at, Admiral?
Admiral Servidio. Sir, as of May of 2012, our field
inspectors have said there is approximately 75 to 100 different
port facilities that have implemented readers and have procured
them on their own. But the Coast Guard----
Mr. Mica. So how many of the total ports would that be?
Admiral Servidio. There is--well, there is 2,700----
Mr. Mica. Ports?
Admiral Servidio [continuing]. Facilities, sir.
Mr. Mica. And we have gotten how many?
Admiral Servidio. I was told between 75 and 100----
Mr. Mica. Oh, we are really moving down the lane in
expedited fashion.
It would seem that this is a spotty deployment and a
totally inadequate adoption of standards. And now we are going
to start the second phase of issuing cards for which we don't
have a reader, we don't have the standards--do we have a
deployment schedule?
When would we hope to have, Assistant Secretary, these
fully deployed and operating, the TWIC cards and readers? Do
you have a plan for that?
Admiral Servidio. I can take that question, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK, we will go back to the Coast Guard.
Admiral Servidio. Sir, I share your concern with the delays
in this. We need to get this rulemaking right. We needed to
take the lessons learned from the pilot program, and we also
need to include the comments that were provided in the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking, along with the economic concerns
for this risk-based system that we are looking to incorporate
in the final rule are there, sir. We need to make sure we are
doing it right.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, we are going on 9 years. We are in
our second phase of issuing cards. You can get something out of
a Cracker Jack box and probably take it to the port and get in,
too. We had GAO test what is out there. They found it is very
easy to subvert what has been issued, since we don't have a
reader, we don't have a full biometric capability in the card.
When is the last time you contacted the folks over at National
Institute of Standards and Technology to see when they would be
ready?
Ms. Walther. I can get back to you with that answer.
Mr. Mica. You don't know?
Ms. Walther. I don't have that with me, no.
Mr. Mica. Who in your department would deal with actually
contacting and dealing with them? Is there a name?
Ms. Walther. TSA has been----
Mr. Mica. TSA?
Ms. Walther [continuing]. Dealing with them.
Mr. Mica. So TSA is responsible for that? And they won't
show up, they will not show up at a hearing here. They refuse
to come and answer us. They are the ones responsible. You are
testifying under oath that they are responsible for that
particular element of getting a TWIC card and its capability,
biometric capability, and they will not show up. Is that what
you are telling me?
Ms. Walther. TSA is responsible----
Mr. Mica. Did the Secretary tell them not to come?
Ms. Walther. Sir, the test program----
Mr. Mica. Do you have the ability to ask them to come?
Ms. Walther. I believe the Department has reached out to
the committee staff on this matter. And I hear your concerns,
and I can take that back, as well.
Mr. Mica. You know, I am fed up with this, really, Mr.
Larsen.
This hearing is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
will come back to order.
We chose to recess both because of my frustration with the
Department of Homeland Security and TSA and their inability to
respond to the committee. I had an opportunity to consult
briefly with the ranking member, and we are going to take the
matter under advisement and talk to Mr. Rahall, Mr. LoBiondo,
and others, see how we proceed with both TSA and Homeland
Security.
In order to be fair and give both sides of the aisle the
opportunity to question these witnesses, I will yield now to
the ranking member, Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, share your
frustration with the lack of TSA's presence and, some might
say, ability to be forthright with this committee in order to
have us do an appropriate job of oversight on the TWIC program.
So we will be talking with Mr. Rahall, be sure he is aware of
the situation, and try to--we will work expeditiously with the
majority side to address that concern.
For Ms. Walther, in my opening statement, I said that we do
not need an expensive, low-tech flash pass that provides little
security. We need an inexpensive, high-tech security credential
that contributes to port security.
I am going to ask you the question, what you think we are
closer to with regards to the TWIC. And the reason I am going
to ask that is because I will ask that of the second panel, as
well, to see if we get an answer that is close or the same or
very different.
So what would you say the TWIC more equates to: an
expensive, low-tech flash pass that provides little security or
an inexpensive, high-tech security credential that contributes
to port security?
Ms. Walther. Sir, the TWIC provides a tamper-resistant
credential that is issued to all individuals that need access
to secure areas of MTSA-related facilities and vessels.
Previously, each port facility owner-operator issued unique
identity cards. Now the TWIC makes an easily recognizable
credential that is recognizable across the country, east coast
or west coast. It also ensures evidence of a security threat
assessment on a vetted population that did not exist before.
I believe in the AAPA's submitted written testimony; they
also acknowledge the difference of before TWIC and after TWIC,
where before TWIC there were unmanned gates and not access
control at every access point, and today TWIC provides a value
that you know when you see a TWIC that you are seeing evidence
of a security threat assessment. And it can be used across the
country while facilities and owners and operators maintain the
ability to make those actual access decisions.
Mr. Larsen. As much as I support this new policy that you
have to extend the expiration date, if it is possible to extend
that expiration date of a TWIC and only require an applicant to
visit an enrollment center once, why does it take two visits to
an enrollment center for the issuance of a new TWIC or a
renewal of an existing TWIC card?
Ms. Walther. The extended-expiration-date card is a one-
time temporary extension. Knowing that the readers will not be
in place at the time TWIC cards begin to expire this coming
October, we wanted to provide that additional flexibility to
the workers to reduce the cost and have one trip to the
enrollment center.
For new applicants, it is important to have those two
trips. As GAO noted, that does follow best practices. At the
enrollment, we capture the information. That information is
used to conduct a full security threat assessment, have the
adjudication. If the applicant passes those checks, they are
issued and a card is activated.
At that second trip to the enrollment center is where we do
a biometric verification of the card to the card holder to
ensure we are issuing that card to the rightful owner prior to
them going out and back to work.
Mr. Larsen. So there are more than 2 million transportation
workers enrolled in the TWIC program. Do you have an estimate
of how many TWIC enrollees, well, TSA expects to have
participate in the extended-expiration-date program?
Ms. Walther. We estimate 1.3 million workers will be
eligible to apply for the extended-expiration-date card.
Mr. Larsen. Do you have any data to indicate whether or not
those who are eligible both will apply and be approved? Is this
going to be a fairly perfunctory activity?
Ms. Walther. Applying for the EED is not a requirement, so
I can't answer whether they will apply for a 3-year card or a
5-year card. That is still an option, and that would be up to
that individual.
Mr. Larsen. And the process of approval, from your
perspective, is that going to be fairly routine?
Ms. Walther. It will be standardized across all EED
applicants, yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Admiral, I understand that--well, Section 809
of the Coast Guard Authorization Act exempts mariners who do
not need access to a secure area of a vessel from the
requirements that they obtain a TWIC, and the Coast Guard
Policy Letter 11-15 implements that section, but still requires
those seeking their first mariner credential to visit a TWIC
enrollment center essentially to complete the TWIC enrollment
process and pay the enrollment fee.
So I understand the TWIC exemption has been estimated by
the Coast Guard to apply to potentially 60,000 of 220,000
licensed mariners in the U.S. Is that correct?
Admiral Servidio. I believe so, Ranking Member.
Mr. Larsen. So, given the policy letter and the impact on
folks who fulfill the exemption requirements and yet go through
the entire TWIC process, are there steps being taken by the
Coast Guard to reduce fees for mariners who do not need TWICs
but yet are basically going through this same process?
Admiral Servidio. There is going to be a rulemaking
project, sir, to reduce those fees.
What we did as a result of 809 is, via policy, implemented
what we could with respect to renewals. About 230 people thus
far have been issued merchant mariners credentials without
having a valid TWIC. But we believe we have to go through a
rulemaking process in order to reexamine those fees.
As part of our merchant mariners credential program, what
we have done is we have utilized TSA's enrollment sites to
collect the biometrics and, again, to do the threat assessment
part of it. Our actual examination of a merchant mariner to
look at their character and their habits of life is a separate
part. But we have looked to make it as most effective as
possible--a single enrollment, single collection of
biometrics--for doing that.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is going to be fine for me. I
will have other questions for the record for the witnesses.
Mr. Mica. We will have other questions. We will leave the
record open for--I think we will leave it open for 30 days if
that is OK.
Mr. Larsen. Sure.
Mr. Mica. Because I would like to have additional questions
submitted to these witnesses.
As you can tell, I am not very pleased with who they sent
today from Homeland Security and the lack of preparedness to
provide information to this committee and the ignoring of the
committee by TSA, which I think we deserve a response from,
questions, and full participation, and we will deal with that.
I am going to excuse these witnesses. I just am very
frustrated at this point. And we will consult with our
colleagues and see how we proceed with the Department of
Homeland Security.
TSA, you are excused.
Let's bring the second panel of witnesses up. We have Mr.
Joseph Lawless, director of maritime security, Massachusetts
Port Authority. He is testifying on behalf of the American
Association of Port Authorities. We have Mr. Lindsay
McLaughlin, legislative director of the International Longshore
and Warehouse Union.
I am pleased to welcome both of the witnesses, and you will
be recognized for 5 minutes. If you would like to provide
additional testimony to the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, you are welcome to do so, just by submission.
So we will proceed with these two witnesses, and I will
recognize first Mr. Joseph Lawless from the Massachusetts Port
Authority, testifying for the American Association of Port
Authorities.
Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH LAWLESS, DIRECTOR OF MARITIME SECURITY,
MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES (AAPA); AND LINDSAY MCLAUGHLIN,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE
UNION
Mr. Lawless. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the committee. Good morning. My name is Joseph Lawless. I am
the director of maritime security at the Massachusetts Port
Authority.
I am testifying today on behalf of the American Association
of Port Authorities, where I serve as chairman of the AAPA
Security Committee. My testimony today is on behalf of AAPA's
81 U.S. port members. All AAPA U.S. maritime port facilities
are impacted by the TWIC requirements.
Five years ago, TSA rolled out the requirement that
individuals who need unescorted access to Maritime
Transportation Security Act-regulated port facilities must
obtain a TWIC card. Those original TWICs are expiring, and
today TSA has a new contractor to handle the issuance of TWICs.
With the new contractor involved, we urge this committee to
keep a close eye on the TWIC process. TSA should work closely
with the stakeholders in the maritime environment to educate
the workforce of these renewal deadlines and requirements.
We are pleased to see that the House Homeland Security
Committee approved H.R. 4251, the SMART Port Security Act,
which includes necessary and immediate reforms to the TWIC
program. The Act provides that not more than one in-person
visit to the enrollment center will be necessary to obtain a
TWIC. And expiration of TWIC cards shall not occur until full
implementation of a final rule for electronic readers, or on
June 30, 2014.
We are also pleased to see that the TSA has taken action to
address TWICs expiring before the end of 2014. U.S. citizens
who have a TWIC that expires before the end of 2014 will have
the option of paying $60 to acquire a 3-year extended-
expiration card. While we support these efforts to make the
process more efficient, our member ports are concerned that
there will not be a new threat assessment conducted for the
extended-expiration cards, and we feel this lack of an
additional criminal background check could dilute the security
of our facilities.
TWIC mandates have changed the way port facilities are run.
In addition to the cost of the card, port facilities must now
ensure that all gate and entrance points have a way to check
TWICs. Massport staffs all of its access points into our
facilities with security personnel to verify that the entrants
have a TWIC.
Though the TWIC card includes a biometric security feature,
due to the delay in the issuance of the final rule, it has not
been put into use at most facilities. Therefore, the security
features of the card are not being utilized and the TWIC is
currently being used as a flash pass. Without these readers,
there is no way to automatically check a hot list of revoked or
suspended TWICs.
The next phase of TWIC is the reader rule, which has
already been delayed for a length of time. The delay in the
reader rule has had a large impact on the Port Security Grants
Program. Congress appropriated $400 million, recognizing the
need for Federal funds to help pay for the reader mandate. In
order for grantees to begin purchasing readers, TSA published
technical specifications for TWIC readers in order for the
grantees to begin to buy these readers. While this is much
appreciated, these specifications will likely change in
response to the final rule. Therefore, those ports are going to
be using their grants in installing systems that may require
costly changes once the final rule is issued. Until the final
reader rule is issued, it is not known if all facilities will
be required to have readers.
Finally, AAPA supports congressional proposals to extend
the 5-year deadline for when the TWIC grants must be spent in
order to allow these funds to be based on the final rule. AAPA
is also concerned that the delay in the reader rule comes at a
time when port security grant funding is decreasing and the
burden of the reader rule will fall on port facilities. While
the programs saw a high of $400 million, its fiscal year 2012
level is $97.5 million. What funding will be available when the
rule goes into effect?
In conclusion, AAPA and its members have worked closely
with the TSA and the Coast Guard on implementation of the TWIC
requirements. For facilities, the next phase, the reader rule,
will be the most expensive. We encourage the Coast Guard to
continue their proposed rulemaking process so ports can take
advantage of the funds provided for reader implementation.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I will withhold questions until we have heard
from Mr. Lindsay McLaughlin.
Mr. McLaughlin. Thank you, Chairman Mica----
Mr. Mica. Welcome.
Mr. McLaughlin [continuing]. And Ranking Member Larsen. My
name is Lindsay McLaughlin. I am here on behalf of our
president, Bob McEllrath, and the 65,000 members of our union.
We represent longshore warehouse workers, maritime workers on
the west coast--Alaska, Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon,
California.
It is interesting you asked in your invitation to us to
respond to the question as to whether TWIC significantly
enhances the security of U.S. ports or whether the costs the
TWIC program imposes on U.S. port workers could be better spent
on other port security initiatives. And I think at our--we had
a meeting of longshoremen from up and down the coast a couple
weeks ago, and there was a resolution that came out of Seattle,
Washington, local, and it said we wanted to repeal the TWIC.
And so let me just try to make the case as to why TWIC is
insignificant in terms of security and poses other problems.
As you know, the MTSA requires that all people that have
access to secure areas of a port to go through the threat
assessment and get a TWIC. However, we believe at its core--and
you talk to individual longshoremen that just move one box from
point A to point B, and they don't know what is in the box.
They have no clue what is in the box. They move the box. They
say, I mean, what are they worried about? What opportunity do I
have to create acts of terrorism? Why should I get a criminal
background check?
And in a port area, I mean, if somebody fails the criminal
background check--I mean, most ports, I mean, everything is a
secure area. So that person, if for whatever reason they fail
the threat assessment, they won't have a job. But, I mean,
these containers are locked, they are sealed. And, from our
perspective, I mean, the only argument that you could make for
a criminal background check for an individual is an individual
who knows what is in the can. But most don't. So they don't
know whether it is tennis shoes or some kind of material that
could be used for terrorism.
Also, we are not really convinced that the TWIC readers
will properly function in the maritime environment and increase
security. We say that because the GAO report on the TWIC pilot
program in February 2012 concluded that, quote, ``readers
capable of passing all environmental tests would represent a
serious business challenge to manufacture in terms of cost per
unit.'' Further, a high number of cards malfunctioned
electronically. There were problems with the cardstock itself,
I mean, with the fading, peeling, staining that made it
difficult to be read by the readers.
And participants in the pilot program, many of them, said
that they would get rid of the guards or the clerks that were
checking the credentials as people come in, which to us is--you
know, these are the people that know you by name, you know,
that could tell if you don't belong. I mean, that just doesn't
seem to be a good idea, to get rid of these people that are
watching you as you come into your workplace.
I mean, you went over the cost, the $3.2 billion over 10
years. I think that is very expensive.
One of the things that I have worked on the most in terms
of port security is to try to get Members of Congress and
others to recognize the civil-liberties aspect of port
security. Our way of thinking is that, if a person has served
time in prison, that does not necessarily make that person a
terrorist security risk. They have committed a crime. Denying
work opportunities for workers doesn't make sense in terms of
concluding, because there is a past, that they must be a
terrorist security risk. But it is bad public policy to put
people out of work.
Perhaps more disturbing, thousands of workers who do not
have a felony conviction at all are denied work opportunities
as a result of the TWIC program until they prove their lack of
conviction. Unfortunately, the ILW has numerous members who
face just these circumstances because of TWIC. And, Congressman
Larsen, I included two examples of people from Seattle that did
nothing wrong. One had a pending case that was never prosecuted
because there was nothing there, and yet when he applied for
his TWIC, it took him 6 months to get it, and he exhausted his
savings. Another example from a longshoreman from Seattle. He
was born on a military base, as I was, and he didn't have
records of his birth certificate. So he had to work through the
military to get that, and it took him 6 months to get that. And
his house--you know, he was close to losing his house. So he
exhausted his savings. So these are unfair--this is a very
unfair aspect of the TWIC program.
And since implementation of the TWIC program, close to
50,000 workers have filed for appeals after initial
determination that they were ineligible to receive a TWIC. An
appeal, as you know, is different from a waiver in that an
individual who receives this determination was probably never
convicted of a felony, but they must prove that he or she was
not convicted by obtaining court and police records and sending
them to TSA for their review. That is because the database that
they use, the FBI database, many times it doesn't show--it
shows that a person was arrested for a particular offense. And
if TSA doesn't follow up, it doesn't follow up--I mean, this is
the final resolution. The person was charged with something,
they may never have been convicted, they may have been
convicted of a lesser offense, and it is not followed up on.
Congressman Bobby Scott from Virginia had legislation last
Congress that would mandate that the FBI look for the final
resolution of the charge to see whether they were convicted
before sending it to TSA so that individuals won't get these
letters saying that they are, you know, denied a TWIC. And I
think that is fair.
So this is a huge problem because a lot of--I mean, I got
calls from longshoremen and they said, well, I was convicted of
X in year, and I served this amount of in prison; it is all
over for me, isn't it? And, you know, they have a union that
they can go to to say, no, most of these waivers and appeals,
they are--I mean, you should be OK, but you have to prove that
you have been rehabilitated. But others that don't have a union
to go to, I mean, one-quarter of these letters that went out
saying you may not be eligible, they didn't even respond. And
that is a problem, because I think people are out of their jobs
when they could have saved their job had they known the
information.
There is a problem here in that we found from the National
Employment Law Project that there were serious racial
disparities in processing of TWIC applications. On average,
white applicants were approved for their TWIC within 6 months;
African Americans, 7 months; and Latinos, 8 months. We find
that disturbing. The National Employment Law Project speculated
that these delays may have been associated with the lack of
targeted outreach and education of these communities in the
absence of translation and interpreter services. We do think
the availability of waivers--am I out of time, or am I OK?
Mr. Mica. You can go on a little bit.
Mr. McLaughlin. OK.
OK--waivers are essential.
There are alternatives. We think Congress is throwing money
away on a wasteful program, and we think the wasteful program
is the TWIC.
We also--you know, there is some bitterness about how the
port security grants have been--some of the port security
grants for surveillance equipment that is actually monitoring
workers and not looking for terrorists. That is a problem, that
workers have been disciplined because of the taxpayer-funded
cameras that are going to these ports. And I have another
example here.
We think that there must be alternative programs and
flexibility built into the TWIC program that would allow a more
localized approach. We think that if our union and our employer
could work out a system with Federal guidelines for access
control, I think we would prefer to do that. TWIC is just too
cumbersome, there are too many people involved, and workers
fall through the cracks, and we want to make sure that our
workers do not.
So, finally, again, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify, and I will try to answer any questions that you might
have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Thank you, particularly, Mr. McLaughlin. I share some of
the commentary and testimony perspective that you have provided
the committee and view this as a wasteful program, not that
effective.
I am a little bit disappointed that I didn't hear more of
that from the association of ports. Are you pleased, Mr.
Lawless? Are the ports pleased with the progress of this
program?
Mr. Lawless. Mr. Chairman, no, we are not pleased. We have
been waiting for this final rule to come out on the TWIC
implementation for the reader rule. We have port security funds
that have been sitting idle while we await that rule to come
out. So, no, we are not pleased.
Mr. Mica. And how about on the deployment side? They
testified that a small fraction of the ports are covered. We
have readers which have not actually been approved as far as
standards. Is that acceptable?
Mr. Lawless. No, that is not acceptable.
Mr. Mica. OK. And now we are about to re-up issuance of
these cards. This has gone on for 9 years. We have actually had
cards out there for almost 5 years. Do you see a problem there?
Mr. Lawless. I do see a problem. It is being used as a
flash pass, a low-tech security item.
Mr. Mica. They probably could have done it at a fraction of
the cost and far less hassle, wouldn't you both agree, if you
are just going to do a flash pass?
Mr. Lawless. Yes, if you are going to do a flash pass, it
would be much less.
Mr. Mica. What is disappointing, one of my investigative
team showed me that DOD already developed a card that has
biometric, it has iris, thumb, it even has palm--very secure. I
will submit a little information about it.
Joint Personnel Identification Version 2, it is JPIv2. This
is already in use, approved, meets all the criteria that we are
looking for. And we are in reinventing the wheel. Well, we
aren't reinventing the wheel because we haven't done what we
need to do in developing anything that meets this standard. It
has already been done.
And we can't even get TSA to come in here. You saw the
fiasco in the panel before us.
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Doesn't that just destroy your faith in this
process? And it is appalling that TSA would thumb their nose at
the committee, that they would send a witness who is so
unprepared, and then to have the nerve to sit there and say,
``Well, TSA has the answer to that,'' but they won't show them
up. And TSA is under that agency, Homeland Security. You know,
I just slammed this down in frustration.
And it is just appalling. And it goes on and on, spending
hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, which, Mr.
McLaughlin, you described very well, and we don't have, again,
a secure program in place. That is such a disappointment.
Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Lawless, I read in your statement that your
organization is pleased with the recent announcement concerning
TSA's extended enrollment date policy. But can you explain why
ports are concerned that there will be no additional criminal
background checks completed for the EED? How serious of a
security threat do you think this is, that they need a new and
additional criminal background check?
Mr. Lawless. Mr. Larsen, I think in the period of 8 years
there is a possibility that a person who has a TWIC could be
involved in criminal activity that would therefore disqualify
them. And if they are not checking that background and
extending the card for 3 years, to me and to my fellow port
members, that is a concern.
Mr. Larsen. With regards to the estimates the AAPA has for
how much it will cost the ports to install TWIC card readers,
has there been a fully developed estimate for the cost?
Mr. Lawless. Not a fully developed estimate, no, sir.
Mr. Larsen. An estimated estimate?
Mr. Lawless. I don't have that information with me, sir,
but I can provide it to you, if you would like, to the
committee.
Mr. Larsen. Could you do that for the record, please? It
would be very helpful.
Mr. Lawless. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Larsen. To that point--and I am very, very sympathetic
to the point that you have about port security grants, having
them, not being able to use them. But I think it is reasonable
to ask Congress to know what the expense might be before
looking at the Port Security Grant Program. So the sooner, the
better on that.
In addition, the port security grants that ports have
received for readers, is there any flexibility in those
dollars, or are these largely grants that are supposed to be
used for readers only?
Mr. Lawless. The grant program, you specify how you are
going to use those funds when you make an application. So you
would specify you are planning to implement a TWIC reader.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Mr. Lawless. And if the reader specs aren't complete,
then----
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Mr. Lawless [continuing]. It doesn't make sense to spend
that money.
Mr. Larsen. Right. OK.
Once the Coast Guard completes it rulemaking, how confident
are you that the TWIC readers that ports purchase and install
will be reliable and durable? We have heard testimony from Mr.
McLaughlin about concerns about the actual durability not just
of the reader but of the card itself.
Mr. Lawless. I have faith in the Coast Guard that they are
going to look at the durability issues. And that is part of the
rulemaking when they issue those final specifications.
Mr. Larsen. Well, we will certainly be exploring that
faith. Nothing against the Coast Guard, but durability of the
readers and the cards has been an issue in the pilot, and that
is going to have to be addressed.
Mr. McLaughlin. Congressman Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Yeah, Mr. McLaughlin.
Mr. McLaughlin. Right now, I mean, if a card is not working
with the reader because it is faded or peeling, they blame the
worker and they say, you have to get a replacement. So, right
now, if a person's card is damaged somehow, you know, faded or
it is just not working well, they say, you have to pay for the
replacement; you did something.
So, I mean, my point is that they don't even have the
durability of the card right, because we can't--I mean, that is
not fair.
Mr. Larsen. And then the cost sits on you.
Mr. McLaughlin. Pardon me?
Mr. Larsen. And then the cost sits on you, the worker.
Mr. McLaughlin. Yeah. Right. Exactly.
Mr. Larsen. In your statement, Mr. McLaughlin, you
expressed concern with the TWIC appeals process, about its
timeliness and efficiency. Do your concerns focus more on
appeals that were filed over the first couple of years after
TSA started enrolling workers, or are these concerns about the
appeals process as it exists today? Have there been any
improvements in the appeals process?
Mr. McLaughlin. Yeah, we passed a law that said you have 30
days to process an application and 30 days for the appeal. So
my concern is that, you know, when we have this stampede to,
again, get these cards renewed, that the same problems will
happen again. So that is my concern.
And my second concern is, I don't want people getting
letters saying they might not be eligible for TWIC when they
haven't done anything wrong, when the information, you know, is
just spotty that they may have been arrested for a certain, you
know, activity but they were never convicted. I don't want--I
mean, those people did nothing wrong, and yet they are waiting
the 6 months, 7 months, 8 months to get their card, while they
exhaust their savings. That, I think, needs to be fixed.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. What specific actions, then, would be
taken to fix those specific problems?
Mr. McLaughlin. Well, without legislation, we would ask the
TSA to do due diligence in working with the FBI to find the
final result of a particular arrest. Because if you are
arrested for, you know, a drug crime, of possession with intent
to distribute, then you are sent a letter saying you may not be
eligible for a TWIC. But I think it is incumbent on them to do
their homework to say, you know, OK, the final disposition was
that this person was not convicted. It may have been a
possession charge; it may have been dismissed.
That work is not being done, so thousands of workers are
getting these letters saying that you may not be eligible for a
TWIC. I mean, like I said, those people without a union to
educate them, or organization, I mean, thousands of people
didn't even, you know, didn't even do their appeal or waiver.
And I just wonder why there wasn't more outreach to those
people, because I worry that they lost their livelihoods.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Well, I would be hopeful that somehow TSA
was listening right now, but I am not convinced that is the
case.
With regards to your testimony on regional or local
strategies, are you suggesting that the entire concept of a
TWIC is flawed and should be scrapped? Or are you suggesting
that the TWIC program can be changed, augmented, tailored for
regional or local approaches?
Mr. McLaughlin. Well, the resolution that was passed by the
longshoremen said we want it repealed.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Mr. McLaughlin. In the testimony, I offered a solution,
that if a major employer like Pacific Maritime Association and
the ILWU could work out with some Federal guidelines a way to
have access control and to ensure that only people that need to
be there are there, with the due process protections that we
worked so hard for in Congress, then that is an option, some
flexibility that would allow us to do that, and take some
pressure off the TSA, with the millions of workers that they
have to deal with today.
Mr. Larsen. OK.
Mr. Chairman, I asked these specific questions to kind of
give us some further direction to look into. And it is a lot of
food for thought, and I appreciate the opportunity to question
the witnesses. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And, Mr. Larsen, again, we have
got to convene a meeting with the leadership of the committee
and take under advisement some action, I think, to bring TSA or
the Department of Homeland Security, at least someone who can
answer our questions, in. And I think it is incumbent on us to
make this work if we are going to put such a program in place.
We have heard the frustration of both labor and also our
ports, the association that runs the ports throughout--and
represents the ports throughout the Nation. What we have in
place is not acceptable. The delays are just beyond
comprehension. The inability to put this program together is
startling. And then the cost to the taxpayers in financing this
entire fiasco is just totally unacceptable--a $3.2 billion
program which is rife with problems and does not secure our
ports.
So I am extremely frustrated by all this. I want to thank
both of you for coming in, particularly Mr. Lawless from
Massachusetts, and being with us today. We are going to leave
the record open for 30 days. We may have additional questions
we will submit to you.
But we appreciate your cooperation, your suggestions and
recommendations as we move forward. If we don't have TWIC or
TWIC doesn't work, we need to make certain we have something
positive in place that does work and secures our ports and our
country.
So, with that, there being no further business at this time
before the committee, I will thank our witnesses, excuse them,
and I will call this meeting and hearing of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee to a conclusion. This adjourns the
meeting. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]