Laurie Thomas, one
of my go-to-sources for MTSA information, posted
a comment on my recent blog
about Port Security Grant legislation. She offered this alternative
explanation for the purpose of HR 5802:
“I have a slightly different slant
on HR 5802. I see this as an attempt to grant industry some relief on TWIC
readers. PAC 01-11 states that industry stakeholders who have purchased TWIC
readers that subsequently do not meet regulatory requirements will not be
reimbursed for the cost of replacement.”
This is a very likely source of Rep. Richardson’s (D,CA)
concern about equipment replacement costs since she represents areas supporting
two of the largest ports on the West Coast. If this was the sole intent, however,
it is not properly reflected in the language of the bill. The bill does not
restrict the grant support to just replacement TWIC Readers, so it may end up
diluting the funds available for that purpose by a number of grant requests for
supporting the replacement of other, even more expensive, port security equipment.
Laurie’s comment also takes a well-deserved dig at DHS for
having been slow to implement provisions of the Safe Port Act. Like a number of
other security requirements established by legislation, the current (and to be
fair, the previous) Administration has been slow to develop regulations
supporting the requirements of the Safe Port Act. Perhaps Congress ought to
look at cutting funding for other DHS offices the way the House Appropriations
Committee has
proposed for the CFATS program.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment