Reader Comment 5-28-12 – Alternate Explanation for HR 5802

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.

Port Security Grant Legislation Introduced

Recently Rep. Richardson (D,CA) introduced two pieces of legislation that would modify the Port Security Grant funding process, expanding the potential uses of those funds. The bills were HR 5802, the Port Security Equipment Improvement Act of 2012, and HR 5803, the Port Security Boots on the Ground Act. Neither bill expands the amount of money made available for the Port Security Grant program; they just expand where the awarded grants can be spent.

Equipment Improvement

HR 5802 would amend 46 USC § 70107(b)(2) by adding the words “and replacement”. This would make the first sentence of the paragraph read:

“The cost of acquisition, operation, maintenance, and replacement [changed wording] of security equipment or facilities to be used for security monitoring and recording, security gates and fencing, marine barriers for designated security zones, security- related lighting systems, remote surveillance, concealed video systems, security vessels, and other security-related infrastructure or equipment that contributes to the overall security of passengers, cargo, or crewmembers.”

As the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 approaches being ten years old, some of the security equipment emplaced under the requirements of the act is reaching the end of its useful life. If this section of the authorization for the Port Security Grant program is not modified, local authorities will be forced to spend their own money replacing this aging equipment.

Boots on the Ground

HR 5803 would amend § 70107(b)(1), changing it to read:

“Salary, benefits, overtime compensation, retirement contributions, and other costs of additional Coast Guard mandated security personnel, including overtime and backfill costs incurred in support of other expenditures authorized under this subsection, except that not more than 50 percent of amounts received by a grantee under this section for a fiscal year may be used under this paragraph [added language].”

This would greatly expand the potential use of Port Security Grants to fund payroll expenditures. To prevent all of the grant funding from going to personnel costs, the bill does limit to total personnel expenditures to just 50% of any grant money received. This may hurt grantees that used their awards for a larger share of their personnel costs.

Moving Forward

I would be surprised if either bill makes it out of the Homeland Security Committee as stand alone legislation. I would suspect, however, that either or both of these bills could find their way into an authorization bill (DHS or Coast Guard) or the DHS appropriations bill as a floor amendment.