S 1966 Introduced – TWIC Processing

Last week Sen. Ayotte (R,NH) introduced S 1966, a bill to reform the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) processing. The bill would direct revisions of the application renewal process so that only a single visit would be necessary to the TWIC Processing Center.

This bill is very similar to HR 3173 that was introduced last month. The major difference in this bill is that it does not include as much verbiage describing the problem as the House bill. A minor difference in the action language of the bill may have significant implications however. As I noted in my earlier blog HR 3173 includes language that requires the processing change to require, “in total [emphasis added], not more than one in-person visit to a designated enrollment center” {§3}. That specific language is not included in this Senate bill.

One reading of the House bill would be that since all current TWIC holders have already made multiple trips to the enrollment center, subsequent trips for renewals would not be necessary. There could be all sorts of fraud and security implications of such a requirement that I addressed in an earlier blog.

The language in S 1966 demands that the new procedures “to require not more than 1 in-person visit to a designated enrollment center”. The subtle difference in the wording could certainly be argued to mean only a single trip for the initial card and only one for renewing that card. This argument would be less credible if the language in HR 3173 did not pre-date this bills introduction.

Interestingly the language in HR 3173 has already been incorporated in HR 3116, the DHS Authorization Bill, as adopted by the House. If it remains in the final version of the bill, S 1966 will become just another bill cluttering up the record of the 112^th Congress. The introduction of this bill will, however, certainly show up in Ayotte’s campaign literature.

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.

HR 3116 Introduced – DHS Authorization

As I noted in my congressional hearing blog post on Monday, Rep. King (R,NY) introduced HR 3116, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, last week. On Monday he also published an amendment in the nature of a substitute on his Committee’s web site for today’s markup of that bill. Since it is that substitute language that will actually get marked up today, I’ll use that for this review of the chemical security provisions of the bill.

No CFATS Language

As would be expected there is no language in this bill that would authorize or modify the CFATS program. While nearly everyone is firmly in favor of keeping this program in operation the wording of program extension would be very controversial. That controversy might actually prevent the consideration of the bill.

A clean, one-year extension like we see in the spending bills would not be a problem, but switching that extension to the authorization bill, might not allow the program to continue. Congress must pass spending bills each year (in some form or another), but an authorization bill is not really required. Note: there has not been a DHS authorization bill passed since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 brought the Department into being.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Sections 501 through 510 are pretty much a ‘lite’ version of the bioweapons provisions of HR 2356. As I noted in my blog on the introduction of that bill, there is nothing in this lite version that would directly address the use of chemical facilities or transports as defacto chemical weapons. As in HR 2356 there are provisions here that might have effects on chemical security and emergency response planning and execution. Those provision include:

• Sec. 502. Weapons of mass destruction intelligence and information sharing;

• Sec. 503. Risk assessments;

• Sec. 504. Individual and community preparedness;

• Sec. 507. Communications planning;

• Sec. 508. Response guidelines concerning weapons of mass destruction;

• Sec. 509. Plume modeling; and

• Sec. 510. Disaster recovery.

None of these provisions specifically address chemical security, rather they include the generic terminology ‘chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack’ (CBRN). One would hope that any supporting regulations would emphasize the fact that attacks on chemical facilities or transport would be the easiest way to effect a CBRN attack, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I addressed most of these provisions in some depth in my posting on HR 2356 and see nothing here that would require a change in those comments.

SARS Immunity

Title VIII provides for immunity for reports of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior and response. This is essentially the same wording as found in King’s HR 495 that I addressed in an earlier blog posting on that bill. Nothing new to see here, keep moving.

Moving Forward

Actually, that’s all there is; for chemical security issues at least. Completely overlooked is any mention of cyber security issues or programs within DHS. Since both Rep. King and Sen. Lieberman (I,CT), chairs of their respective homeland security committees, want to see a DHS authorization bill passed, I don’t see any reason why some version of this bill or S 1546 (see my posting on that bill) could not pass in this session; besides consideration of appropriations, jobs and other politically important legislation, of course.

Congressional Hearings – Week of 10-10-11

In this holiday shortened week (What, you forgot about Columbus Day?) there are currently four hearings scheduled that might be of interest to the chemical security or cyber security communities; two dealing with emergency response, a DHS authorization hearing, and a small business look at GPS interference.

Emergency Response

There will be two hearings looking at emergency response at the Federal level. Neither will specifically address chemical emergency response, but one can always hope that someone will ask about planning for large scale chemical releases that could result from a terrorist attack on big chemical facility.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold their hearing on Wednesday looking at "The Federal Role in Disaster Recovery and Response." The current witness list only includes representatives from various federal agencies that might be involved in response efforts; including FEMA (obviously), the Army Corps of Engineers, and even the Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately no one from the US EPA has been included; so much for chemical issues.

On Thursday the House Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will look at cutting the costs of emergency planning and response. Their witness list includes more of a front line look at emergency response with FEMA Administrator Fugate being the only fed testifying. The cost cutting focus does not bode well for the possibility of expanding emergency response planning for chemical incidents.

DHS Authorization

The House Homeland Security Committee will meet on Wednesday to markup HR 3116 the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill was introduced last week and the text just became available from the GPO this morning. According to the Committee web site there will probably be a substitute language amendment introduced by Chairman King (R,NY). Currently there is no specific mention of CFATS or the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program in the bill.

GPS Interference

Congress continues to look at the potential GPS interference issues associated with the proposed LightSquared broadband system. This time it will be the House Small Business Committee that will look at the GPS interference effects on small businesses. The current witness list includes representatives from airports, ag retailers, and aircraft electronics industries. Again, it doesn’t look like anyone is interested in the potential effects on control system timing issues.