House HS Committee Marks-up HR 3116 – DHS Authorization

Last week in two days of hearings the House Homeland Security Committee marked-up HR 3116, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The lengthy hearing was necessary because of the more than 70 offered to Chairman King’s substitute language to the bill. While the adopted amendments came from members of both parties, the final vote on passage was a very partisan vote of 20 to 12.

As I mentioned in my earlier posting about this bill there is very little that directly addresses chemical or cyber security matters; much the same can be said about the amendments that were considered. Only four of the adopted and one of the rejected amendments dealt with chemical security matters (very broadly speaking) and only two of the rejected amendments dealt with cybersecurity matters.

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

There is only one amendment that directly addresses chemical security issues and it was introduced by Ranking Member Thompson (D,MS). The amendment would add a new section modifying the underlying authorization authority for the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. It addresses some technical issues with the definitions of ‘ownership’ and ‘possession’ that will have to be addressed in the interminably pending DHS regulations.

More importantly it would require DHS to exempt “persons engaged in transportation activities” from coverage under this rule. This is another attempt to ensure that people already vetted under the TWIC program do not have to be re-vetted under another program. Unfortunately, the broad wording of this amendment will cause problems for the regulation drafters (who already have enough problems with the Ag folks) in that it would not technically allow for even checking of the TWIC.

Chem and Bio Testing Equipment

The issue of evaluating chemical detection equipment was addressed by an amendment introduced by Rep. Turner (R,OH). This would require DHS to establish a “test and evaluation program for commercially available chemical and biological detection equipment” {Amendment (e)(1)}. Unfortunately the copy of this amendment available on the Committee web site so it isn’t clear how Turner expects DHS S&T to pay for this program.

TWIC

Two of the five chemical related amendments dealt with the Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC); one adopted and one rejected. Both amendments closely paralleled separate bills addressing the same issues.

Rep. Richmond’s (D,LA) Amendment #1VV addressed TWIC application and renewal processing. This amendment very closely mimics HR 3173, co-sponsored by Richmond. That bill and this amendment would only allow the TSA to require an applicant or renewant (okay I made up that word) to make one visit to a “a designated enrollment center except in cases in which there are extenuating circumstances” {Amendment(b)} for purposes of enrollment, activation, issuance or renewal of a TWIC. The way the amendment is actually worded a renewant would not have to physically appear having already made at least one trip to the enrollment center.

In passing this amendment the Committee is ignoring the recommendations of the GAO, TSA and the requirements of Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 201-1 (addressed in an earlier blog post). They are bowing to political pressure from both unions and many TWIC related companies (so support from political bases of both parties). Once again politics trumps security.

The rejected TWIC amendment was introduced by Ranking Member Thompson and would have extended the expiration dates of current TWICs until December 31, 2014 or whenever DHS implements their final TWIC Reader regulations, whichever comes first. This was nearly identical to HR 1105 introduced by Thompson. Thompson wanted to avoid possible problems that might arise if the TWIC Reader regulations require some changes in the physical TWIC.

Maritime SAR Immunity

Rep. Rigell (R,VA) introduced an amendment that would have added specific language to the suspicious activity reporting (SAR) immunity provisions of this bill that would include maritime SAR reports. The language is much different than was included in Rigell’s HR 2846 but it accomplishes the same thing.

NOTE: I must admit that I have not included any mention of a number of failed amendments that Democrats introduced that would have attempted to address their concerns with the potential profiling issues they see involved in the SARs immunity issue. We will undoubtedly see these re-introduced and rejected if and when this bill gets to the floor of the House.

Cybersecurity

Both cybersecurity related amendments were rejected on party line votes and were introduced by Rep. Clarke (D,NY). The first would have changed NPPD to the Directorate of Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity and establish the National Cybersecurity Division within that Directorate. There was nothing really substantive about cybersecurity issues in that amendment.

The second amendment would have required DHS to train State and local law enforcement personnel on “cybersecurity standards, procedures and best practices” {Amendment (b)(1)}. Actually this would only be a pilot training program. This appears to be primarily directed at protecting law enforcement networks rather than any other information systems. It certainly would not address control system security.