U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

36–689 PDF 2007

TRANSPORTATION WORKER 

IDENTIFICATION CARDS 

(110–58) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 12, 2007 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TED POE, Texas 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Allegretti, Thomas, President, American Waterways Operators ......................... 33 

Candies, III, Otto, Secretary/Treasurer, Otto Candies, LLC for Offshore Marine Services Association ..................................................................................... 33 

Fanguy, Maurine, TWIC Program Manager, Transportation Security Administration ................................................................................................................... 5 

Gosselin, Debbie, Owner of Chesapeake Marine Tours/Watermark Cruises, 

Passenger Vessel Association .............................................................................. 33 

Holder, Tamara, Representative for Rainbow/Push Organization ...................... 33 

Rodriguez, Michael, Executive Assistant to the President, International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots ............................................................... 33 

Salerno, Rear Admiral Brian, Assistant Commandant for Policy and Planning, 

U.S. Coast Guard ................................................................................................. 5 

Willis, Larry, General Counsel, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO 33 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Allegretti, Thomas A. .............................................................................................. 48 

Candies, III, Otto ..................................................................................................... 57 

Fanguy, Maurine ..................................................................................................... 61 

Gosselin, Debbie ....................................................................................................... 72 

Holder, Tamara N. ................................................................................................... 80 

Rodriguez, Michael .................................................................................................. 85 

Salerno, Rear Admiral Brian .................................................................................. 92 

Willis, Larry I. ......................................................................................................... 111 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Salerno, Rear Admiral Brian, Assistant Commandant for Policy and Planning, 

U.S. Coast Guard, responses to questions from Rep. Cummings .................... 97 

vi 


36689.001
vii 


36689.002
viii 


36689.003
ix 


36689.004
x 


36689.005
xi 


36689.006
(1) 

HEARING ON TRANSPORTATION WORKERS 

IDENTIFICATION CARDS 

Thursday, July 12, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elijah 

Cummings [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good morning. The Subcommittee will now come 

to order. 

From the first day I assumed the Chairmanship of this Subcommittee I began to hear from the maritime industry about the 

‘‘TWIC’’ program, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential. The TWIC is essential to ensuring that we allow only those 

people to access our nation’s sensitive transportation infrastructure, like the ports through which so much of our commerce flows, 

who do not pose a threat to the security of that infrastructure, and, 

indeed, our nation. 

However, like all the new security measures instituted after 9/ 

11, the introduction of TWIC requires the Government to strike a 

delicate and careful balance to ensure that the security measure 

achieves our critical security goals but does not, and I emphasize 

does not, place an undue burden on the maritime industry, interfere with the flow of commerce, or lead to the unfair treatment of 

workers. 

Today’s hearing will give the Subcommittee the opportunity to 

take a comprehensive look at the impact that the introduction of 

the TWIC may have on the maritime industry. Unfortunately, also 

like many of the security improvements introduced after 9/11, the 

rollout of TWIC has not been as seamless as expected. The card 

was initially expected to be issued in 2003 and has now been 

issued to just a handful of transportation workers under a pilot 

program. 

The first maritime workers will likely begin receiving cards in 

the fall. The current schedule expects all transportation workers to 

receive a card by September of 2008. But the Government Accountability Office estimates that 750,000 mariners and 3,500 maritime 

facilities and more than 10,000 vessels will need the card, presenting a significant challenge to TSA and to the Coast Guard. 

Mariners will be required to pay approximately $140 to obtain a 

TWIC unless they already have a merchant mariner document. 

2 

However, the Government Accountability Office reported in a September 2006 study that the Transportation Security Administration has estimated that the rollout of the TWIC will cost the Government and maritime industry $800 million over the next 10 

years. And we do not yet know for sure precisely how that sum will 

be divided between the two parties. 

Importantly, the cards themselves is only half of the puzzle that 

needs to be solved to create the security regime that TWIC is intended to provide at our ports. The card must be validated by readers that will control access to secure locations. But the Government 

has not yet issued a final rule regarding the readers. Thus, many 

of the questions that the industry approached me with back in January remain to this day unanswered, including whether smaller 

vessels and facilities will be required to have a card reader, and 

even who will bear the cost of the reader installation. I hope our 

witnesses will address that issue because this is one that has been 

brought to me over and over and over again. 

I noted that in Rear Admiral Salerno’s testimony he talked 

about, and so did Ms. Fanguy, talked about not interfering with 

commerce, undue interference with commerce. I want to know 

about that because one of the things that I do not want to do is 

see small operators in the maritime industry be unduly burdened 

when they are trying to conduct their businesses. Of course, we 

want to strike that balance of national security, but we also want 

to make sure that we look at how this effects small operators. 

Perhaps most critically, the rollout of the TWIC also entails the 

conduct of a comprehensive security screening of all workers now 

in the maritime industry and the introduction of an ongoing 

screening program that will examine all who will enter the maritime industry. A person who applies for a TWIC will undergo a 

background check, a check of immigration status, and a check 

against national terrorism databases. Certain crimes involving terrorism or transportation security incidents will permanently disqualify a person from receiving a TWIC. Other convictions within 

the past seven years will constitute interim disqualifications. 

While individuals who are denied a TWIC because DHS believes 

that they pose a security risk or are due to a disqualifying crime 

will have the opportunity to appeal, the appeals process will be 

complicated. It will place the burden of disproving the Government’s determination on the applicant. I note that the Baltimore 

Sun on June 24 of this year published serious allegations against 

the Coast Guard’s administrative law system. If they prove to be 

true, ladies and gentlemen, they raise very, very, very disturbing 

questions about the ability of the system to guarantee fair treatment to mariners who come before it. Our Subcommittee is closely 

examining the allegations and we anticipate that the Coast Guard’s 

administrative law system will be the subject of a hearing later 

this month. 

Obviously, the purpose of the TWIC is to prevent people who 

pose a security risk from accessing a port, and that security purpose is paramount. However, I strongly believe that those who 

have made mistakes that did not involve security and who do not 

pose security risks should not be denied the opportunity to work 

in the maritime industry, which is essentially what the denial of 

3 

a TWIC application will mean. President Bush himself said in his 

2004 State of the Union Address, ‘‘America is the land of the second chance.’’ And when the gates of the prison open, the path 

ahead should lead to a better life. The maritime industry offers 

great opportunities for that better life and it also faces a critical 

labor shortage. It is imperative that the process for denying an individual those opportunities be fair and not put unsurmountable 

hurdles in the way of hardworking individuals who are truly committed to bettering their lives. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and our witnesses. I want to 

thank all of you for being here. And now I recognize our distinguished Ranking Member who I am honored to work with, it is a 

real pleasure, our Ranking Member Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

it is an honor and a pleasure to work with you. I think we have 

developed a good partnership in this early stages of the 110th Congress. Before giving my opening remarks, I would ask unanimous 

consent that Mr. Baker of Louisiana, a Member of the Full Committee but not of the Subcommittee, be permitted to make an opening statement and participate in today’s hearing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Subcommittee 

is meeting this morning to continue its oversight of the Department 

of Homeland Security’s efforts to implement transportation security 

credential programs that were first required under the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act of 2002. Under that Act, all maritime 

workers will be required to apply for and receive the TWIC that is 

embedded with biometric information. 

In the nearly five years since this requirement was first enacted 

several statutory deadlines have been established for the rollout of 

the program, including a deadline of July first of this year, 2007, 

which was set in last year’s SAFE Port Act. The Department has 

issued final regulations to implement the program in January of 

this year; however, no TWIC cards have been issued and it is unclear when this program will be up and running. The program is 

critical for maintaining security levels at our seaports and we simply cannot afford to miss any further deadlines. I hope and expect 

that the witnesses will provide the Subcommittee this morning 

with a firm implementation schedule for this important program. 

I am confident that under the leadership of our very talented and 

gifted Subcommittee Chairman, this Subcommittee will do its part 

to make certain that this schedule is met. 

Under the SAFE Port Act, the Department is required to develop 

TWIC card reader technologies and to test those technologies in a 

pilot program to be established at several U.S. ports. I understand 

that plans are underway to start the pilot program at the ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach in the near future. I hope that the 

witnesses will share more information with the Subcommittee regarding the Department’s plans to carry out testing under the pilot 

program, the anticipated schedule for receiving results, and the 

number and location of ports that will participate. 

The Subcommittee will also hear from several witnesses on the 

second panel regarding the anticipated impacts of the new TWIC 

requirements on maritime industries and maritime workers. I enVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36689 JASON
4 

courage the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration to continue working with these groups to reduce negative 

impacts to the greatest extent possible. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing today in advance. I look forward to receiving their testimony. And I yield back 

to the Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette. We will 

certainly welcome Mr. Baker to our hearing. 

We want to thank you, Mr. Baker, for your interest in this hearing. We have heard a lot of very good suggestions and input from 

you. So we welcome you, and I yield to you for an opening statement. 

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy extended 

and the assistance of the Ranking Member in allowing me to have 

a brief opening statement on this matter. I come here today out of 

a strong sense of urgency for the Louisiana marine industry and 

the potential complications that the current structured TWIC implementation may present to that industry. 

It is currently very difficult to get new hires to enter into the marine business. For those who have never been on the southern end 

of the Mississippi on a slow day in August, traveling seven knots 

on the river, it came make quite an impression on you. The practical observation I wish to make is that requiring someone to make 

the physical trip to a regional center and pay the $137, even if it 

is the most convenient and expedited process possible, creates a 

barrier to employment that is real. For many of these individuals, 

they are entry level jobs, first entering the workforce perhaps, and 

they have not yet made nor have they determined their suitability 

for a life in the marine industry. 

Further, I would point out, at least from my perspective, that it 

is the person in command and control of that vessel tow that presents the most significant threat to some untoward ill-advised activity. A deck hand would have to join together with others and almost create some act of mutiny to take over the vessel and conduct 

some activity which would not be in the public interest. Now I realize individuals can do certain things to bring about certain ill 

events. But it would seem that in the risk profile that a new hire 

just coming on to the job should be able to pass some rudimentary 

background examination, checked against the terrorist list, drug 

screens, the very commonsense things that one might expect to be 

done on any employment, but then given some period of time and 

perhaps the ability to earn a paycheck or two so that when they 

pay that fee they have the financial ability to do it, and secondly, 

have made the career decision that this is something that I really 

want to continue to engage in, therefore applying for my TWIC 

makes professional sense. 

I come to those observations and recommendations not on my 

own but from some considerable conversation with people in the industry who are struggling to find young men and women who 

choose to work in the this type of occupation. Further, Chairman 

Oberstar has indicated in a hearing just concluded his willingness 

to consider modifications statutorily to the program. I am anxious, 

of course, to work with and hear the reasonable explanations as to 

5 

why this approach could not be modified or, more importantly, be 

found a reasonable modification to the current proposal. 

I regret further, Mr. Chairman, that because of Committee 

schedules, I cannot stay for the hearing this morning. But I did not 

want the opportunity to go by since I raised the issue at Full Committee. I certainly wanted to at least personally inform the expert 

witnesses here today of my sincere interest in this matter and, to 

express to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking Member LaTourette 

my deep appreciation for the hearing and for the opportunity to 

continue to work with you as we go forward. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, very briefly. I, not unlike the gentleman from Louisiana, have another Committee hearing as well. 

I want to hang around here for a while because this is a very, very 

significant issue. I thank you and the Ranking Member for having 

called the hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Coble. 

We now welcome our first panelists. Ms. Maurine Fanguy is the 

TWIC Program Manager for the Transportation Security Administration, and Rear Admiral Brian Salerno is the Director of Inspection and Compliance for the United States Coast Guard. We will 

hear from Ms. Fanguy first and then we will hear from the Rear 

Admiral. Again, we thank you very much for being with us. 

TESTIMONY OF MAURINE FANGUY, TWIC PROGRAM MANAGER, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; 

REAR ADMIRAL BRIAN SALERNO, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 

FOR POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. COAST GUARD 

Ms. FANGUY. Good morning Chairman Cummings, Ranking 

Member LaTourette, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak about the 

Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, program. 

My name is Maurine Fanguy and I am the program director for 

TWIC. I am pleased to represent Assistant Secretary Kip Hawley 

here today. I would first like to thank this Committee for its leadership in defining the vision and requirements for TWIC. Today I 

will discuss TSA’s progress in delivering this critical security enhancement. 

For us, the stakes are enormously high. We are mindful of the 

SAFE Port Act July 1 deadline. But before TSA rolls out one of the 

world’s most advanced interoperable biometric systems, we must 

ensure that we get it right the first time, and, even more importantly, the TWIC enrollment process cannot negatively impact the 

free flow of commerce or people’s livelihoods. 

Once TWIC is up and running, TSA will vet as many workers in 

one day as we did during the entire year of prototype. The importance and enormity of this task within the maritime environment, 

with a dynamic and mobile workforce, demands that we get it 

right. Moreover, for the people who pay for these cards and use 

them daily to enter their workplaces and jobs, we must ensure that 

the program is fully tested and does not compromise security or 

privacy. 

6 

It is important to realize that there are four key differences that 

make the TWIC card dramatically different from the badges we all 

wear everyday: 

One, the TWIC cards uses ‘‘smart card’’ and biometric technologies based on the most advanced Federal Government standards and for the first time applies them in the commercial sector. 

Two, TWIC issues cards that can be used at any port or vessel 

across the entire nation. 

Three, TWIC has massive scale. Over one million cardholders 

will use this same credential across 3,200 facilities and on 10,000 

vessels. 

Four, finally, TWIC issuance is based on comprehensive security 

checks that involve sharing data across multiple agencies. These 

checks are integrated into all of TSA’s vetting programs. Which 

means that we can connect the dots throughout the entire transportation sector. 

TWIC is a sophisticated system powered by state-of-the- art technologies and we are focused on a rigorous program to flight test 

TWIC before we can go out to the ports. Testing is well underway 

and, based on our most recent test results, we expect to begin enrollment in Wilmington, Delaware in the fall of this year. After 

proving our field processes in Wilmington, TWIC enrollment will 

proceed throughout the nation in a phased-in approach based on 

risk and other factors. The 130 enrollment sites will be established 

by the end of fiscal year 2008. 

TSA will continue to work with our partners, the U.S. Coast 

Guard, and maritime stakeholders to ensure that for the first time 

in history thousands of independent businesses will have one interoperable security network and workers will hold a common credential that can be used across that entire network. Assistant Secretary Hawley has given us the mandate to get TWIC right the 

first time. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. Rear Admiral. 

Admiral SALERNO. Good morning, Chairman Cummings, Ranking 

Member LaTourette, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this 

morning about the current status and the way ahead for the TWIC 

program. Specifically, I would like to update the Subcommittee on 

the Coast Guard’s efforts, in partnership with TSA, to implement 

this program. Our overall goal is to strengthen maritime security 

while balancing the need to facilitate commerce and minimize negative impacts on port and vessel operators. 

Although the TWIC program has not moved as rapidly as all of 

us would like, important milestones have been accomplished, working relationships have been strengthened with public and key industry stakeholders, and our commitment to protecting the maritime transportation system while facilitating commerce has not 

wavered. Since publication of the final rule in January of 2007, 

Coast Guard and TSA have continued to meet with our stakeholders in various venues and we have received considerable input 

on their ongoing concerns. These venues have included national 

7 

trade associations, marine industry organizations, and labor 

unions. 

The concerns expressed in these meetings have focused on the 

details of TWIC enrollment and vetting, the need to ensure that 

new hire provisions contained in the rules function as intended and 

serve the needs of small businesses, and the execution of pilot tests 

which will pave the way for the follow on rulemaking addressing 

card reader requirements. 

To facilitate the rollout of the TWIC cards, Coast Guard and TSA 

have worked together to develop several supplementary documents 

to assist those affected by the regulations. These documents include 

a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, or what we call a 

NVIC, which explains the processes and procedures related to the 

implementation of the TWIC. In creating this NVIC, we have solicited and we have received valuable input from the affected industry 

as well as from Coast Guard field personnel. 

This NVIC, which is numbered 307 and entitled Guidance for the 

Implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program in the Maritime Sector, was approved last week 

and is now available to our industry partners, our stakeholders, 

and other interested parties on the Coast Guard and TSA internet 

websites. 

We have also assisted in the development of two Small Business 

Administration compliance guides to further assist our industry 

partners and to provide a plain language overview of the program 

for TWIC applicants. These are currently undergoing final review 

and will be released in the near future. 

Additionally, we are developing internal guidance documents for 

training, implementation, and enforcement to provide Coast Guard 

field personnel with the tools and policy necessary to ensure that 

the TWIC program is soundly and consistently implemented nationwide. 

As we prepare for the implementation phase, we are committed 

to continue working with industry to bring about the smooth transition to TWIC access control measures. We are particularly aware 

of stakeholder concerns regarding the high turnover rate of personnel in some maritime trades and their ability to enable newly 

hired employees to begin work right away. 

Our current regulations, policy, and guidance reflect those concerns, such as in provisions that enable new employees to begin 

work immediately after enrolling for their TWIC. In implementing 

TWIC, however, we want to ensure that special provisions like this 

one achieve an equivalent level of security across the maritime 

transportation system as a whole. For this reason, we are concerned about proposals that would grant specific maritime trade 

special exemptions to current requirements. 

Although we are now working on implementation of the current 

TWIC program requirements, we have also begun to work on future rulemaking that will address requirements for card readers. 

The readers will be designed to verify a TWIC- holder’s identity before gaining unescorted access to secure areas of a vessel or a facility. We are seeking the collaboration of our stakeholders in this effort. We have requested recommendations on specific potential 

reader provisions from our partners in the National Maritime SecuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36689 JASON
8 

rity Advisory Committee, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory 

Committee, and the Towing Safety Advisory Committee. 

In the meantime, to maximize the security benefit contained in 

the current TWIC requirements, the Coast Guard intends to procure handheld readers for use during vessel and facility spot 

checks. After the compliance date is reached in a given port, the 

Coast Guard will use the handheld card readers to randomly check 

the validity of an individual’s TWIC. This will serve as an interim 

measure until the industry’s card reader requirements are established. 

TSA and Coast Guard continue to reach out to our private sector 

stakeholders in the interest of fashioning a regulation that 

strengthens America’s maritime security while advancing commerce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak 

with you today. I will be happy to take your questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Rear Admiral. I want to 

start with you, Rear Admiral, and just ask you a few questions. My 

concerns go in large part to where we are and are we going to be 

prepared to do this Coast Guard-wide. One of the things that this 

Committee has done is we are in the process of tackling a lot of 

issues, things like LNG, short sea shipping, boating safety, things 

of that nature, and one of the things that has become clearer and 

clearer, particularly post-9/11, is that the Coast Guard is being 

stretched and stretched and stretched. 

And now here we have something new that we have got to deal 

with and is very, very important. I want to make sure that we are 

prepared, that we have the manpower and womanpower to do this 

and do it effectively and efficiently. Ms. Fanguy said something 

that is exactly right. We really have to get this right. Because if 

we do not get this right, it is going to be total chaos. 

And so, Admiral Salerno, concerns are being raised about possible TWIC card reader requirements. And I know what you said 

about the regulations, but I hear this over and over again. For example, should a charter fishing boat with one licensed captain have 

to have a TWIC card reader so he can scan his own card? I am very 

serious about this. Part of the problem is that having been a businessman myself, one of the things that business people are concerned about is they have to know what is expected of them because they have to actually plan far out and they need to be clear 

as to what is expected. So can you comment on that one for me 

please. 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. I will answer in two ways, if you will 

permit me, sir. As far as the requirement to obtain a TWIC, a merchant mariner, anybody who has a license or a document is required to obtain a TWIC. That is derived from the legislation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. Talk about the card reader. 

Admiral SALERNO. The card reader is the second aspect of this. 

That will be the subject of the next rulemaking. We have not yet 

determined what the threshold will be for card readers on smaller 

vessels. There are a series of pilots that will take place. You mentioned Los Angeles, Long Beach as a facility pilot, there are other 

facilities that will be looked at. But included in the pilot program 

are some vessels and we will look at towing vessels, for example, 

and small passenger vessels and make some determination as to 

9 

what the appropriate threshold is for a reader or if a reader is necessary. So I would say, sir, that is still to be determined. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And when do you anticipate that rulemaking? 

Admiral SALERNO. It will become part of the pilot project but as 

well we have also asked the advisory committees to comment on 

what are the appropriate thresholds. So all of this will be taken up 

in the process of the second rulemaking. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have read the testimony of our various witnesses, and you probably will not be here when they testify, but 

say, for example, a towing vessel with a crew of six people who 

have sailed together for years, would they have to have a TWIC 

card so that they can scan each other as they move on and off the 

vessel in fleeting operations with other barges? Those are the kind 

of questions they have. 

Should a vessel on an inland lake such as Lake Powell in Utah 

have to have a TWIC card if there is little chance that they could 

be involved in a transportation security incident? Those are real 

practical questions that are going to be raised after you leave. Another one is how are you going to deal with TWIC card readers on 

ships like cruise ships whose personnel move constantly from a 

public area to a restricted area? Is it reasonable to require a cruise 

ship to have over 200 card readers at each doorway between a public and a restricted area? And would waiters have to scan their 

cards to get into the kitchens to pick up a tray of food? 

These things sound very mundane but they are very real. And 

again, I have got to tell you, in talking to industry folks, maritime 

folks, they want to obey the law but they need to know what is expected of them so that they can properly prepare. And I am sure 

they would want to have as much input as possible into what you 

are doing in this rulemaking so that their concerns might be taken 

into consideration. And listening to what you just said, I take that 

to be the case? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. Absolutely the case that our intention 

is to remain fully engaged with our stakeholders so that as we go 

through this process of developing the requirements in the second 

rule we have the benefit of their views and we understand what 

is reasonable and practical. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you describe how the TWIC will work with 

or compliment merchant mariners documents, and how will the 

documents be consolidated, and how will the application process be 

coordinated? 

Admiral SALERNO. The merchant mariners credentials, we have 

a proposal or project in place now to consolidate some of the existing merchant mariner credentials into a single document. Currently, there is a license, there is a document, potentially a certificate of registry, an STCW endorsement and so forth. So we have 

this multiplicity of documents that a mariner is required to obtain. 

We are proposing to consolidate those. It will not at this point, 

however, include consolidation of the TWIC. So that a mariner 

would still have to have his merchant mariner credential and a 

TWIC. We do plan to harmonize as much as possible between those 

two documents so that we can parallel process the application for 

a TWIC and for a merchant mariner’s document, so compressing 

the timeframe required. 

10 

Currently, to obtain a merchant mariner’s document there is a 

security background check associated with that which is performed 

by the Coast Guard. Once the TWIC takes place, that background 

check requirement for security purposes will shift to the TWIC 

process. So there will not be a duplication of the security background check. What the Coast Guard will continue to do is a safety 

background check, such things as looking at the National Driver 

Register for drunk driving offenses and so forth, because there is 

a safety concern there that TWIC is not concerned with. 

So to the extent possible, we will harmonize. But we are looking 

at still two separate documents. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Well the current schedule expects that 

all transportation workers receive a card by September 2008. That 

is just a little over a year from now. But the Government Accountability Office estimates that 750,000 mariners, and 3,500 maritime 

facilities, and more than 10,000 vessels need the card. Is the Government prepared, and perhaps, Ms. Fanguy, you might want to 

take a look at this question, is the Government prepared to have 

issued all of those cards by September 2008? 

Ms. FANGUY. We have established a plan that once we complete 

our testing of the system we will begin in Wilmington. After we 

have done the proving out of our processes in Wilmington, we have 

a pretty aggressive plan to stand up over 130 enrollment sites 

throughout the United States and its territories. Our plan is a twopronged approach. We will be standing up fixed sites, those are the 

over 130 sites I mentioned, as well as mobile sites so that we can 

really get coverage across the nation. We recognize that this is a 

very large population, very mobile, and that is why we have this 

two-pronged approach so that we can try to get as much coverage 

as possible early on. 

So right now, in partnership with our contractor Lockheed Martin, we certainly believe that we have the ability to fan out quickly. 

There is also a lot of flexibility within our contract to be able to 

add shifts if necessary to cover more workers in an area, to send 

out equipment and people to actually enroll workers. So we feel 

like we have a flexible plan in place. But, of course, we need to 

measure progress once we begin enrollment using a series of standard metrics that we will actually use to measure our contractor’s 

performance and also our own. And that is how we will manage the 

program to make sure that we enroll all of the workers. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. If I remember, in your testimony you talked 

about the contract with Lockheed Martin. And as you might imagine, this Committee has many concerns about contracts, particularly in light of deep water. I think you did say in your testimony 

something about bonuses. Did you mention bonuses in your testimony and how that would be determined? 

Ms. FANGUY. We have a performance-based contract which is 

considered to be a best practice in Government contracting. So it 

is not a typical time and materials type of contract. We have set 

out a fixed price for enrollment. So we have one price that we pay 

the contractor for each person who comes in and applies for a 

TWIC. We then have a series of performance measures that our 

contractor must perform to, and there are both disincentives if they 

do not meet those performance levels as well as incentives. We 

11 

would be happy to get back to you with more details on the specific 

performance measures if that is something you would be interested 

in. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. And the reason why I mentioned it is what 

you have said in your statement and in your written testimony, 

and that is that we have to get it right. We cannot afford to get 

it wrong. 

I just have one or two more questions and then I will turn it over 

to Mr. LaTourette. 

Going back to full implementation, are there plans, do you have 

contingency plans to delay implementation if the things do not go 

as you hope they should as you proceed? 

Ms. FANGUY. In terms of Wilmington? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. In terms of implementation of the requirement 

for the maritime workers to obtain the TWIC. 

Ms. FANGUY. In terms of start of enrollment, we are basing the 

start of enrollment on completion of our testing. Right now, we 

would anticipate that that would start in the fall. But we will continue to monitor the progress of our testing of the system throughout the rest of the summer so that we can prepare to begin enrollment as quickly as possible in the fall. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that I want you to do so that 

we will not have any surprises is that I want you to keep the Committee apprised of what is going on, and if there are any significant 

problems we would like to know about them. We do not want to 

have to read about them in The Washington Post. If you would 

kindly do that, stay in contact with us and let us know what is 

going on. 

Finally, let me ask you this. One of the things that I raised, and 

I have a number of questions about this but I am going to just ask 

you one, Ms. Fanguy, would you please walk us through the process of how you would evaluate whether someone with a felony conviction should be issued a TWIC card. For example, if a 30 year 

old man held up a 7-11 when he was 18 years old and went to prison for 3 years but now he has cleaned up his life, has held a steady 

job for the past 7 years, has family, volunteers in his church, would 

TSA automatically deny him a TWIC card because of his felony 

conviction, or will you evaluate his history to determine if he is a 

terrorism security risk? 

Ms. FANGUY. That is a great question. That is something that we 

would take very seriously. We have based the TWIC process for 

conducting security threat assessments on our hazardous materials 

endorsement program which does the same kinds of checks. The 

type of situation that you mention is something that we deal with 

every day on the Hazmat program. So in that particular case, the 

individual would come into an enrollment site, would provide their 

biographic and biometric information. Once we get that information, we send that off to do a legal presence check, we also do an 

FBI criminal history records check, and then we check against our 

intelligence databases for potential ties to terrorism. At that point 

a trained adjudicator will get all of the data in a case file that they 

are going to look at. 

So in the case that you mentioned, if it was one of the felonies 

that is a disqualifier within the TWIC rule, the individual would 

12 

be mailed what we call an initial determination of threat assessment. And what that letter is is it lets the person know that you 

have one of the crimes within the timeframes that is a disqualifier, 

but if you would like to get a waiver—in other words, if you were 

convicted and that truly is you, you can get a waiver for that offense. And that certainly is something, again, that we deal with 

every day. 

We have tried to simplify our waiver process based on feedback 

from stakeholders on the Hazmat program. In terms of simplifying 

that process, we have made it more plain English. The other thing 

is we have made it so that you can provide any kind of evidence 

of your good character and the fact that you no longer present a 

security threat. So as an example, we would get letters from members of the community to attest to the person’s good character, and 

also the time elapsed is certainly something that we would take 

into account. 

When we get that information back from the individual we then 

look at it and look very hard at the facts presented to us and we 

will determine whether they truly present a security threat. And 

in that case that you described, without having the full details, it 

would be potentially that the person would get the endorsement in 

the Hazmat case or TWIC if they do not present a security threat 

assessment. The thing that is important is that the person actually 

take advantage of the appeal and waiver process, though. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last thing. Who hears these cases? You 

just mentioned that they go before some type of adjudicatory body. 

Who hears these cases? 

Ms. FANGUY. The first step is an appeals and waivers board. So 

an appeal is in the case that there may be erroneous information 

in your file. The waiver is if you truly did that offense on your rap 

sheet and you provide evidence to apply for a waiver for that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You did not answer my question. I said who 

hears that. 

Ms. FANGUY. TSA is the first body who hears that information. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Does the Coast Guard ALJ get involved in 

this at all? 

Ms. FANGUY. In the next step in the process there is an ALJ 

hearing. We are currently a customer of the Coast Guard ALJ office. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And has there been any evaluation as to whether 

or not there are sufficient Coast Guard ALJs? Because I have got 

a feeling you are going to have a lot of cases coming through there. 

Is there any coordination? 

Ms. FANGUY. Absolutely. We meet with the Coast Guard ALJ office regularly. We just met with them yesterday. They had two 

open ALJ positions and they are now filled and the judges will be 

reporting to duty shortly from what I understand. In terms of the 

actual ALJ function, I would defer to the Admiral to talk more 

about the Coast Guard function. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Admiral? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. The ALJ process would work as an 

administrative hearing where the respondent would present information to be considered by the judge on that case and the judge 

would make the ruling on that. We do feel that with the additional 

13 

two judges that have been hired we have the capacity to handle the 

anticipated workload from this program. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first thing I 

want to ask I am going to ask on behalf of the Ranking Member 

of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica, he asked me to ask a question 

about Florida. He says that the State of Florida conducted a TWIC 

pilot program with TSA for nearly two years and the result of the 

project is the State issued a Florida Uniform Port Access Credential. Unlike TWIC, FUPAC is in place and is providing additional 

safety and security protection of Florida ports. It is his understanding that FUPAC meets TWIC technical requirements, and the 

first part of the question would be is his understanding correct? 

And secondly, that the State of Florida is concerned that it is unnecessary and redundant to also require TWIC at Florida ports. 

The question is, one, is it your understanding that this FUPAC 

meets TWIC technical requirements, and the second part is how is 

the department planning to work with Florida to address their concerns? 

Ms. FANGUY. You are absolutely right that we have been working 

with Florida since the pilot and we have been in regular contact 

with them since the prototype ended. In fact, we had folks in Florida earlier this week meeting with the State of Florida to look at 

how we can consolidate into a single credential. Based on the conversations that we had then, it is our understanding that the Florida folks would like to consolidate and have one credential be the 

TWIC credential. 

What we are really looking at is harmonization of the security 

checks. TSA does a comprehensive set of security checks that are 

quite different that the Florida checks. Our checks cover criminal 

history records checks, legal presence, as well as the consolidated 

Watch List checks. We feel that is very different, it is a security 

focused check and we feel like that is absolutely important to have 

in place to make sure that we are mitigating the risks in the ports 

including in Florida today. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you. I think Mr. Baker, who is not 

here anymore, was here not only because of his great interest, but 

during a recent markup he had an amendment and there was a 

colloquy between he and the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. 

Oberstar, and it was proposal in an amendment that he withdrew 

that I guess the two sides are working on that deals with this interim period. I think you heard in his opening remarks that he is 

proposing something that is different from the current regulations. 

My understanding, under the current regulations new hires will 

be allowed to work for 30 days or up to 60 days if granted a waiver, 

his proposal was 90 days, and the difference was that under the 

regulations you have to show proof that you have applied for the 

TWIC card and paid the fee, and I think his proposal is not in that 

regard. 

I guess I would ask you, are you familiar with his proposal and 

would solicit any views that either of you have on it? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I will take the initial stab at that and 

then see if Maurine has anything to add. We do have some concerns about that. The one difference, primary difference is that in 

14 

the regulations as they are currently configured the applicant does 

have to apply for a TWIC, so that process begins to work. In the 

proposal as we have seen it, there is no requirement to apply. 

There is a 90 day window. 

So right away there is a concern about how do we track individuals who are in this 90 day window, how do we enforce that. The 

90 days sounds good but it may be so open-ended that it may be 

180 days before we even become aware of it. So there is no database to track that. 

There is a funding issue. The way TWIC is currently configured 

it is meant to be a self-funding system. So that the application fee 

works to help fund that background check. In the provision as we 

have seen it, there is no funding mechanism. 

So those are some of the initial concerns, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Ms. Fanguy? 

Ms. FANGUY. I think the other thing TSA is concerned about is 

the level of checks that would be done. We think the checks that 

we have established for the TWIC program are comprehensive and 

really help to mitigate the threats that we have in the ports today. 

Our focus is to keep terrorists and associates of terrorists out of the 

ports. That is why we have the three phased series of checks. And 

we do have a concern if those checks are not conducted that we 

may be introducing a window where somebody could take advantage of that and do harm to our ports or on vessels. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. As my time winds down, I am very 

sensitive to the observation that you made a number of times that 

we have to get it right. But I can remember after September 11 visiting a company, sadly, it is an Italian manufacturer but I think 

they install most of the magnetometers now at the airports, it is 

like CEIA, and on that visit, which was four years ago, they gave 

me a card after I just walked through the door and when I walked 

through their reader my picture showed up, my birth date, my biometric information showed up. That was four years ago. So I guess 

the question I would have is, understanding you want to get it 

right, why has this program experienced so many delays? 

Ms. FANGUY. In terms of the credential that we are putting out 

for TWIC, I think that it is fair to say that TWIC is probably at 

the forefront of biometric and credentialling technology globally. 

We are not aware of any other program that has implemented a 

biometric credential on this scale in such a short timeframe anywhere else in the world. There certainly are other cards that are 

out there. 

One of the things that we are focused on, however, is interoperability, making sure that for technology manufacturers we do not 

go with proprietary standards, which is why we have gone with the 

latest standards from NIST that are the most advanced Federal 

Government standards that we have here in the United States 

today, so that we can have an interoperable system that will work 

across all of the ports. 

The other thing that we are focused on is realizing that we have 

over 3,200 facilities, over 10,000 vessels, they all have very unique 

business processes, different kinds of security access control regimes in place today. The TWIC card is very, very flexible. Some 

of the other cards that are out in the market today are only able 

15 

to be used in a limited number of ways and you have to use proprietary technology. Our card can be used in a number of different 

ways that will hopefully make it easier for people once we actually 

require readers to implement it within their legacy access control 

systems or other technology that they may have in place at their 

facilities or on vessels. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank our witnesses. One of the things that I am 

interested in affects a number of operations in my district. These 

are integrated facilities. In my region we have got pulp and paper 

mills that of necessity have docks with them, so they serve as both 

a port and a manufacturing plant, and they have got log yards and 

sorting yards and whatnot. I cannot imagine that they are very 

high priority targets for terrorists due to the location, the nature 

of the business, et cetera, but they employ literally over a thousand 

people. Only a relatively small subset of those people actually work 

on the docks. The rest are in the pulp and paper mill. But it becomes prohibitively expensive and impractical to quarantine, as it 

were, the port operations from the rest of the operations, it becomes very expensive to do that physically. 

To TWIC everybody who works in the pulp and paper mill even 

though they may not ever get to the port operations seems a little 

silly. How do you deal with a situation like that? We all want to 

support your mission of security but we also want to apply some 

commonsense to this and not impose undue costs or burdens on 

various businesses and employers and employees. Can you enlighten us about how we can balance the security element with the 

commonsense element. 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. Regulated facilities are required to 

develop a facility security plan and within that plan the facility operator can designate the secure areas of the facility. As we have 

rolled out the TWIC requirements, we have encouraged facilities to 

take another look at their secured areas so that they do not necessarily need to embrace the entire industrial complex. 

If there is nonmarine-related aspects to their facility, as you 

pointed out, they can be excluded and so that the workers in those 

nonmarine areas would not require TWICs. They can define the secured area in whatever way makes sense and it is then to gain 

entry into that secured area as defined by the operator that a 

TWIC would be required. So there is a great deal of flexibility 

there. And there is also an area maritime security committee which 

provides assistance at the port level as to what makes sense. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that. The experience of some industries 

in my district has been that there is not a great deal of flexibility, 

that the pragmatics of running a particular operation, in this case 

pulp and paper mill, but I imagine there are others around the 

country, do not lend themselves to the kind of security that is being 

mandated. You can imagine that there is a fence around the entire 

pulp and paper mill operation, basically, but not necessarily a fence 

around, because it is impractical to do so, around the port, per se. 

Just the way the mill operation works. I have been out there several time. The problem seems to be that if you cannot install certain physical infrastructure that is required in a certain conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36689 JASON
16 

strained area, then one must TWIC everybody, a thousand people, 

most of whom never get there, some of whom have worked fifty 

years there. You just have to say this does not make sense. There 

is nobody who is going to hijack a pulp and paper barge and bring 

it into this Capital; it is just not going to happen. So there is a balancing of risk and practicality. It is a little bit analogous to me, I 

know a pilot who had his toothpaste confiscated but he was able 

to carry his gun onboard a flight. It is not maybe that bad yet. I 

just would urge you to adopt some flexibility and rationality to this. 

Let us say you do not feel it is a rational process. How do you 

appeal this? Do you have a chance to sit down and have cooler 

heads prevail or somebody work with you, or somebody just says 

no, you have got to fence, everybody has got to be TWICed, X cost 

of money. It does not produce anything worthwhile. 

Admiral SALERNO. There are mechanisms at the port level. The 

Captain of the Port and his staff that specialize in area maritime 

security matters are a resource to the facilities and they can discuss these matters and really come to some reasonable and practical solution. It is certainly not our intention that everybody at an 

industrial facility have a TWIC. Our intention is that the secure 

areas of the facility, the marine portions would. I am not familiar 

with the pulp and paper industry. 

Mr. BAIRD. We would love to have you come visit if you want to 

see. 

Admiral SALERNO. I will have to do that. 

Mr. BAIRD. It is quite an operation and it is complex, it just does 

not lend itself easily. And again, we are not talking containers coming in from overseas. We are talking barges and the chips for the 

most part, and exports of logs. It is just not going to lend itself to 

loose nukes I would not think. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. As we move to Mr. Coble, let me just interject 

one thing real quick. Mr. Baird makes a very important point. As 

I have traveled around the country and talked to heads of ports, 

one of the things that they are concerned about, and mariners, they 

really want to work with the Coast Guard, as a matter of fact, it 

is a top priority with them, but so often what they find is that 

when the Coast Guard comes in there is no flexibility. This is what 

they have told me in many instances. Some of them will probably 

as a result of the TWIC be changing those secure areas. And you 

all would have to approve that, right? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. The facility plans are approved by 

the Coast Guard. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have raised this issue of some flexibility, not 

going against national security, still maintaining that, but coming 

up with practical solutions. Mr. Baird makes a very good point. It 

just seems as if now we are moving into another area where there 

is no flexibility. Again, I am not saying lessening national security. 

But if there is no flexibility, I can see this could be kind of chaotic. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, I had to leave 

the hearing room. I hope I am not repeating a question that has 

already been put to you. Let me put a two part question to you, 

Admiral. Would the Coast Guard be able to review application for 

17 

new hires and issue merchant mariner credentials within the 30- 

day interim clearance period under the TWIC rules, and does the 

Coast Guard need additional authority to authorize newly hired 

maritime workers to work at a conditional status until they receive 

their MMCs? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I think there are a couple of questions in 

there. To obtain the merchant mariner credential there will be the 

requirement that one have a TWIC. And we will coordinate very 

closely with TSA to make sure that the communication between 

databases and agencies occurs in a very timely fashion so there is 

no practical delay once the TWIC is obtained in getting the merchant mariner credential. We intend to parallel process; you can 

apply for both simultaneously. 

If I understood the additional question, is there authority for interim issuance of a temporary MMD while the primary MMD is 

being processed? 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I believe there is authority for that. But 

I will say that our goal as part of the consolidation and restructuring of the licensing and mariner credentialling process is to 

drive the cycle time down so that that would not be necessary. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral SALERNO. We will make that as quick as possible. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Fanguy, under current law, applicants who are 

denied a TWIC may appeal a decision of the TSA, or in the case 

of a person who is disqualified from receiving a TWIC because of 

a prior conviction of a disqualifying crime may request a waiver. 

Will an individual automatically be denied a TWIC because of a 

prior conviction for an interim disqualifying offense, or will the reviewer take into account the circumstances related to that specific 

offense? 

Ms. FANGUY. In terms of the interim disqualifiers, our adjudicators will look at the time that has passed since the date of incarceration as well as the time from the date of conviction, and if either 

one of those dates is within either five years from the date of incarceration or seven years from the date of conviction, the person 

would receive an interim determination of threat assessment. At 

that point the person has the opportunity to apply for a waiver. 

And we highly encourage people to apply for a waiver if they do 

fall into that category so that they can provide more information 

so that we can make the determination that they do not pose a 

threat. And if that is the case, we would provide them with a 

TWIC. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I am by no means trying to open the 

door to invite felons aboard. But I guess I am looking for some 

flexibility. If the offense is not related to terrorism or safety or security, I can see some flexibility might be in order there. 

Ms. FANGUY. In our waiver process, we certainly look at all the 

information that is provided. One thing is time that has passed, 

evidence that the person has been rehabilitated. 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes. That is where I am coming from. 

Ms. FANGUY. References. We try to be as flexible as possible and 

taken into account all of the information that the person provides 

to us. 

18 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you both, Admiral, Ms. Fanguy. I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Coble. Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing on transportation worker identity cards is a very important matter for our 

Committee and for the maritime community. I appreciate very 

much your pursing this matter, and I appreciate the support of Mr. 

LaTourette and his questions and line of inquiry. 

I will depart from the regular order for a moment, Mr. Chairman. In addition to all the distinguished Members and witnesses 

participating today, I would like to note the presence in our hearing room of a former colleague, a former member of the Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Committee with whom I served for many 

years, and a Member of this body, former Congresswoman Helen 

Delich Bentley, a strong advocate for the merchant marine, former 

maritime commission member, and whose zeal for the Jones Act 

and Buy America is equaled or maybe exceeded only by that of Mr. 

Taylor. So we thank Ms. Bentley. She is a regular participant at 

our hearings. 

I have to say, Admiral and Ms. Fanguy, it is frustrating that we 

are five years from enactment of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and we still do not have this transportation worker identity card. More troublesome is that there really is not an effective 

alternative program in place that has met the purposes of the Act 

and one that has engaged the support of the maritime community. 

I understand all the complexities of developing this card. I understand all the difficulties you have in doing the background 

checks. I have been involved with this since Pan Am 103. I served 

on the Pan Am 103 Commission. I was Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee at the time. That was our commission that made recommendations for background checks for airline workers, not only 

pilots and flight attendants, but the ground crews and all those 

who service airports. And we had an extremely difficult time getting regulations adopted and practices put in place. But eventually 

it happened. 

Now you should have been able to learn from the experience of 

aviation and put in place practices and technologies—good Lord, we 

are the land of technology—to establish this card, establish the 

background checks. These are not new issues. We have confronted 

them before and dealt with them in the aviation sector. I know 

Chairman Cummings has already quoted the President’s 2004 

State of the Union message that America is the land of second 

chance. The gates of prison open a path ahead that should lead to 

a better life. We know that the waterfront is not a particularly savory place. It is a rough and tumble environment. People have incidents. 

Staff MEMBER. People like me. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. People like you? I do not know, you did not get 

much rough and tumble there. You came out of it pretty clean. But 

I would hire you on. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is why we hired you on this Committee to 

help us with Jones Act. We need guys like you, Mr. Taylor. 

19 

So there may be explanations, but I do not find a valid excuse 

for the failure to develop programs to keep felons out, to stay within the purposes of the Act, and to follow the purpose of the law that 

an individual can be denied only if the Secretary has determined 

that person to be a terrorism security risk or was convicted of treason, espionage, sedition, terrorism. I do not think that is terribly 

hard to establish background checks for that. We did it in aviation 

going back ten years. We had trouble with foreign airlines and foreign repair stations and maintenance facilities outside the United 

States and with domestic repair stations in the U.S., they did not 

want the application of those provisions. But what is the difficulty? 

What is the problem in complying with the law? Ms. Fanguy? 

Ms. FANGUY. We definitely have taken the lessons learned from 

aviation. That has been very important to us. In looking at the disqualifying offenses for the TWIC program, the disqualifying offenses that we have now in our regulation are actually based on 

the felonies that are in the aviation statutory language. Other lessons learned have been taken from our prototype program where 

we went out to a number of select ports and issued prototype 

TWICs. Some of the technology has changed since the prototypes 

took place. We want to be in alignment with the latest and greatest 

technology that America has to offer and that is where we are 

going in order to begin enrollment this fall. We think it is important to make sure that the system is going to be able to support 

the large volumes of workers that we are anticipating enrolling in 

the next year or so. We anticipate to have over a million people. 

In comparison, in our prototype program we enrolled in one year 

the same number of people that we will enroll in one day of TWIC. 

So the scale for the TWIC national rollout is tremendously greater 

than what we had during the prototype. 

For the security threat assessment aspect, we are certainly basing it on the lessons learned. But we want to make sure, again, 

that in terms of the volumes we are able to plan for the large number of people who are going to be coming through not just our system but other systems within the TSA and elsewhere within the 

Federal Government. And so that takes planning and setting up of 

equipment. We are well underway with that but we want to make 

sure that we can handle the volumes and make sure that we can 

provide a secure credential that will protect people—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you tested a card? Have you tested a background check against an individual? Have you put it in the marketplace and run real life people through the process? 

Ms. FANGUY. That is what our prototype focused on. We took information from the people and we gave them a card. We are now 

in the process—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And what problems did you find? 

Ms. FANGUY. We had a lot of lessons learned that were very valuable and we have—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. For example? Give me an example? 

Ms. FANGUY. Flat versus rolled fingerprints. Critical piece. 

Makes it very inconvenient for people. Rolled fingerprints take a 

much more trained enrollment agent and you do not get tremendously better results when you do flat slap fingerprints. We tested 

out both methods during our prototype. We are now doing ten print 

20 

flat fingerprints that we then send to the FBI to do our checks. It 

makes the enrollment time much quicker, much more convenient 

for people, and it makes it so that we can actually make the card 

cheaper because the training aspect is not as great. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And how many people have you run through the 

prototype program? 

Ms. FANGUY. One of the other things that we found that was critical was pre-enrollment. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Say again. 

Ms. FANGUY. Pre-enrollment. So we provide a website where people can go and provide their basic biographic information and they 

can schedule an appointment. That helps us to plan our resources. 

That helps to keep down lines at the centers and it also helps us 

to plan how many people to have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you worked with the longshoreman’s union 

and with the barge operators, and with the coastwise trade operators? 

Ms. FANGUY. That is another lesson learned, too, is communication. So we have actually established a TWIC stakeholder communications committee. We had a meeting yesterday. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That was a major problem in aviation. They 

never talked to the airlines, they did not talk to the unions, did not 

talk to the ground workers, did not talk to the fuel handlers, or 

anybody. They just went ahead with the program and then it failed 

because they did not talk to those who were on the ground. So I 

am glad to hear that you are doing that. 

Are you coordinating with the Coast Guard? Admiral, are you in 

touch day-to-day, in lockstep with TSA on this process? 

Admiral SALERNO. We are, sir. And we do participate in the 

stakeholders meetings as well. I think before you arrived, sir, I 

mentioned that we do have advisory committees with whom we 

interact; the merchant marine personnel advisory committee, national maritime security advisory committee, transportation safety 

advisory committee. All of whom we have engaged on the way forward, especially with TWIC readers, as to what will be reasonable 

and practical. But we are very much concerned about obtaining the 

input and advice of the industry stakeholders in this process. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What about the background checks. What issues 

do you see, have you seen, both of you, in background on individuals and distinguishing the classifications that we have established 

in law—terrorism, security, risk? 

Ms. FANGUY. In terms of the security threat assessments, we are 

actually basing our security threat assessment program on our hazardous materials endorsement program. To date, we have conducted over 600,000 security threat assessments for hazardous materials endorsement drivers. The checks are the same. So we have 

been able to prove out the process for getting the information, feeding it out to the various Government agencies who provide us then 

information to come back. 

We have also been able to prove out our adjudication process 

where we have trained adjudicators who look at all that information to determine if there is a security threat assessment or not. 

So we are trying to base this on lessons learned from other programs that have been successful and continue to refine the existing 

21 

programs as well as the TWIC business model to make sure we 

have improvements along the way. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. When do you expect to have this identification 

card operational? 

Ms. FANGUY. We would anticipate that we would begin enrollment in Wilmington, Delaware, in the fall. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. This fall? 

Ms. FANGUY. That is correct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a long period of time, three or four 

months depending on where you live in this country. Fall is a 

shorter time in Minnesota, a longer time out here on the East 

Coast. 

Ms. FANGUY. I certainly understand that. We can get back to you 

with a more detailed schedule. But right now we are focused on the 

testing. The testing process, the way that we go about it is there 

are five key components to the TWIC systems and so we need to 

test each one of those pieces in and of themselves, make sure that 

those all work. I had mentioned the pre-enrollment website. That 

is one piece that we are very near completion on testing. But then 

the next piece is the enrollment work station. We are very near 

completion on the testing of that. We can then hook those two 

pieces together, make sure that the data from pre-enrollment goes 

into the enrollment workstation so that a trusted agent can complete an enrollment. Then we have the three other pieces to send 

the data for our security threat assessments and actually produce 

a card at the end. We need to finish testing on all five of the key 

components before we can send the data through end-to-end to 

make sure that we have a solid business model in place and to 

make sure that all of the data can flow through the system and 

produce a good card at the end. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I, for one, and I am sure Chairman Cummings, 

Mr. LaTourette, and other Members of the Committee would like 

to have a visual hands-on observation. Our worst nightmare is that 

innocent person who is kicked out because they did not do the 

proper review of the background check or they confused the name 

with somebody else and that person is then out of work for no good 

valid cause. I know that it takes time to set up a program to do 

those things properly. But that is our worst fear. 

I will suspend there, Mr. Chairman. I regret my late arrival. I 

was on a highway coming in here behind a two car accident for the 

last hour. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As we 

move on to Mr. LoBiondo, I hope you are understanding what is 

coming out of the Committee, Ms. Fanguy and Rear Admiral. We 

see, and I know you do, too, the practical side of all of this. As Mr. 

Oberstar said, somebody being possibly put out of work, unable to 

make their mortgage payment, unable to do the things that they 

need to do for their kids or whatever, that is real. So we want to 

make sure that this thing is done right. 

And I was just wondering, one quick follow-up to Mr. Oberstar, 

as I listened to the process, you said five steps, do you see any way 

that you would publish regulations for the readers before the pilot 

is finished? 

22 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, our intention is to follow the provisions of 

the SAFE Port Act, which would require that we take into account 

the results of the pilot in the development of the regulations for the 

readers. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you are telling me that when that pilot is finished and not until then will we see the final regulations; is that 

right? Because I am going to hold you to it. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I do not have a time line for you. We are 

beginning work on—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No. Wait a minute. Hold on. This is not about 

a time line. This is one simple question. I just have got to have the 

answer to this. What I am asking you is not complicated. Ms. 

Fanguy just talked about a process, a pilot process. All I am asking 

you, I am not asking for the time line, I will get to that some other 

time, is you are not going to issue regulations until that pilot is 

complete. It is not complicated. 

Admiral SALERNO. We are beginning the process now of gathering information for the regulations process. But sir, if I could just 

say, our intention is to gather information from that pilot process 

to include in the regulation process. But I can get back to you with 

more details on that. I have not looked ahead as to the time line 

for the regulations yet. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am trying 

to find the right words to say how I feel about all of this. Extremely 

frustrated does not quite get it, but that is probably as far as I will 

go at this point with the delays and continued problems that TSA 

is having deploying the TWIC card. Over the last couple of years 

we have held hearings. We had Secretary Baker here last March. 

Mr. Baker sat there, was not able to give us any explanation of the 

delays. The law was passed, the Maritime Transportation Security 

Act, five years ago that mandated this. It seemed like either it was 

not a priority or someone did not care. We were assured that is not 

the case. We are back here again today. And as I am listening to 

all of this, almost as strong a feeling as I have about the outrage 

and the frustration of the delays is that since TSA has gotten so 

very little right, when you do roll this out the real world and the 

people who have to live with this everyday, and we are going to 

hear from the second panel about this in great detail, are going to 

have some great obstacles to overcome. 

I, like the Chairman and the other Members of the Subcommittee, and Mr. Oberstar, we are trying to be patient and understand that you are trying to get it right. But we are five years 

later and there is a limit to this. And when you do finally roll this 

out, I hope you realize that there is no room for any excuse of why 

it does not work. And for someone, if we have that problem, to 

come up here and tell us why everyday people who are going to be 

affected by what you do are incredibly screwed up because something was not done right is just not going to be acceptable. 

I just have a couple of questions. How does the TSA intend to 

deal with the day laborers and other workers that are not terminal 

workers but need unescorted access to the facility to perform sporadic maintenance or construction? 

23 

Ms. FANGUY. I will actually defer to the Admiral on that. The 

Coast Guard is responsible for defining who needs a TWIC and 

where. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we have some provisions in our draft 

guidance for periodic workers that can be either escorted or accompanied, and there are some thresholds for the numbers of workers 

that could be monitored in a work area. But the intention is that 

if they are frequent workers, people who come into a facility on a 

daily basis or several times a week and enter into secure areas, our 

expectation is that they would have a TWIC. So there are provisions for the occasional workers. They would not be unescorted or 

unmonitored, however. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So if you have got a construction project that is 

a six month project or a twelve month project but that is all, then 

how are those folks going to be dealt with? 

Admiral SALERNO. That is something, sir, that we would probably have to address almost on a case-by-case basis. I do not know 

that we have addressed that specifically in our guidance. We have 

addressed the occasional worker but certainly the situation you described I think would probably require a specific policy statement. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We understand that DHS is now starting to develop the regulations governing the installation of the card readers. 

When does DHS plan to publish the rulemaking? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we do not have the time line for the publishing of the rulemaking as yet. We are beginning the process of 

developing the regulation. And just to clarify the question earlier. 

Part of the process is the pilot projects that are beginning this 

summer. We will not publish the final rule until the information 

is received from the pilot. But we are beginning the process of developing the information for that rulemaking now. I do not know 

if that clarifies your question earlier, sir. We will have the pilot information before the final rule is published. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. That leads me, Mr. Chairman, to the last question. I think the last question. Several ports have receive port security grants to install the TWIC readers. Will their projects be integrated into the TWIC reader pilot program? 

Ms. FANGUY. I can address that. Absolutely. We have been working with a number of parties who received port security grants. LA 

and Long Beach are a good example. We have also been working 

with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to look at 

doing a pilot there. Additional port security grant recipients have 

been identified who we plan on approaching to see if they would 

like to be a participant in the pilot of the readers. But that certainly is our approach. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. How are you going to do that? How are you going 

to integrate them into the pilot program? 

Ms. FANGUY. Our plan would be to work very closely with the 

various stakeholders to look at their particular access control systems that they currently have in place and then look to see how 

TWIC readers would be implemented within their facility or on 

their vessels. So we will work very closely with them. Our overall 

goal in the pilot is to implement technology that we would hope 

would actually work when the final regulations are in place. So you 

would hopefully not have to go out and buy new equipment. You 

24 

would be able to reuse the equipment that we installed during the 

pilot process. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Normally, the word ‘‘hopefully’’ would not be 

troubling. In this case, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. As we move on to Mr. Larsen, just 

a quick question. Admiral, you tried to answer my question but you 

did not answer it. I was not going to come back to it, but I have 

got to ask you, and I will tell you it is frustrating and I would not 

want to be in your position and not be able to answer this question. 

Let me try to put it to you real succinctly. There is a pilot process. 

All I am asking you is will the card reading regulations be published after that process is complete? What you answered was that 

you will get information. That does not answer my question. I am 

not asking for a time line. I am just asking you a simple question. 

You have got people in this audience who are dependent upon how 

you all deal with this. They want to know what they can expect. 

And we would like to know. Do you follow what I am saying? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. The final rule—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me do it this way. This is the end of the 

process, okay? This is the regulations. I am just asking you one 

thing: Do the regulations come out over here, or do the regulations 

come out over here? 

Admiral SALERNO. The regulations come out after we have the 

data from the pilot process. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that after the pilot is complete? That is the 

question. Do not forget, this is completion. Is it over here, this is 

before, or is it after? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. It is after the pilot project is complete 

and we have the data. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Fine. I just wanted to know. The completion of 

the project. I know you will get the data. I just wanted to know 

whether it is after or before. And you have answered me. 

Admiral SALERNO. It is after. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Thank you. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just disagree 

with my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo. I have actually 

run out of patience. I do not have any more patience. We are dealing in Washington State with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative as well as this and when you look at the delays in this and 

the problems that we are having in the WHTI program, it reminds 

me of Chris Berman calling a long run on ESPN football highlights 

about people rumbling, stumbling, and bumbling down the field. 

That is how this all sounds to me. And the reason that we do not 

do this very well is because do not invade citizen’s privacy very 

well in America. That is why we have problems with this and it 

should tell us something about how we do these kinds of things 

and how far we are going to try to meet security needs. We go so 

far that the only way to do it is to invade citizen’s privacy. And 

there are some questions that I have with regard to that. 

Ms. Fanguy, have you ever tried to get off a ‘‘No Fly’’ list? 

Ms. FANGUY. I personally have not. 

Mr. LARSEN. Do you know anybody who has? 

Ms. FANGUY. No. 

25 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. I have been working with two folks in my district who have. There is no reason in the world why they ought to 

be on a No Fly list, and yet they are. So if, in that example, someone was on the TSA No Fly list, the appeal, so-called appeal, if it 

went to Admiral Salerno’s office or folks at the ALJ in Baltimore 

if you are a maritime worker, it would not be 30 days, it would not 

be 90 days, it would be forever in the appeal process. 

Admiral Salerno, have you ever dealt with an appeal of somebody 

trying to get off the No Fly list or any select T list? 

Admiral SALERNO. No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, feel lucky. If anybody applying for a TWIC 

happens to be on a No Fly list or a select T list for no apparent 

reason, they might as well be in Franz Kafka’s ‘‘The Trial.’’ They 

are going to be lost forever in that process to get off that list and 

never get a TWIC card, ever. 

Seasonal workers, the issue of seasonal workers is important because seasons differ depending on where you live in this country. 

I imagine Florida’s seasonal worker season is a little longer than 

Alaska’s, for instance. And the fishing fleet in Alaska is based in 

Alaska and in my State in Washington State and you have a lot 

of seasonal workers who fish just for the season. You know, they 

fish, go into port, offload, go back out, and so on. 

I am just curious if that would be a kind of worker who needed 

a TWIC card because they are going to be accessing a portside for 

delivery before they go back out. And if they are, how does it apply 

to that seasonal worker where the season is maybe two months 

long, maybe a month and a-half long, including my nephew, who 

I am sure has got no problem getting a TWIC card but I am sure 

there are folks up there who might have problems getting a TWIC 

card. Have you considered the idea that seasons are different depending on where you are in the country, the length of a season 

for a seasonal worker? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, what we have considered is the need for 

people to get to work quickly, and we realize that that affects seasonal operations. The regulations themselves do not pertain to seasons, per se, they pertain to getting people to work quickly. One 

clarification may be not all vessels require a TWIC. Only those that 

are regulated by MTSA, Maritime Transportation Security Act, 

really come under this body of regulation that would require a 

TWIC. 

Mr. LARSEN. Not every fishing vessel is 12 feet long, either. 

Admiral SALERNO. That is correct. They would not be regulated 

under MTSA in all likelihood. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. What do the regulations say about those folks 

who have been convicted but exonerated? 

Ms. FANGUY. I would need to get back to you with the specific 

details. However, in terms of our overall process, one of the differences from the No Fly list that you had talked about was that 

we do a pretty comprehensive series of checks. We get a fair 

amount of data back based on the application information. That allows us, in the case of somebody’s criminal history, to look at the 

full information. I would have to get back to you on the exoneration. But we would have the information available to us. If their 

record has been expunged, we would take that into account and 

26 

make the determination appropriately. But we can get back to you 

with more details on your specific question. 

Mr. LARSEN. If you could do that. Because there is nothing in my 

notes or even the GAO report of April that talks about conviction 

but exoneration. It strictly talks about conviction. 

If I could, just one more question. This has to do with the contractors issue that I think Mr. LoBiondo brought up. I have four 

refineries in my district, all of which have piers, all of which at 

points throughout time obviously need repair. At any one time at 

these refineries they might be employing 800 people, some of whom 

have to work the pier, some who do not, but then they have on any 

one day 100 to 200 contractors on site for maintenance, some of 

which is strictly doing classic refinery maintenance, some are actually doing piers. 

For those contractors, if they were down doing pier work, would 

they have to get a TWIC for the time they are doing pier work, 

since they might be interacting with oil tankers? I imagine oil 

tankers are on this list of vessels. 

Admiral SALERNO. In a construction or a repair case like that, in 

all likelihood they could wall that off from the secure area so that 

the workers would not need a TWIC. 

Mr. LARSEN. The workers may not, but if the contracting crew 

was down on the pier doing maintenance work? 

Admiral SALERNO. You are talking about a specific project to do 

maintenance work? 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Admiral SALERNO. That can be, if it is a sustained thing, they 

could in all likelihood wall that off, with the approval of the Captain of the Port. If it is an occasional worker that comes down once 

a month to do maintenance work or something like that, it may be 

a little bit different story where the worker is escorted. It may depend somewhat on the scenario. But for construction, major 

projects there is a provision where that can be walled off. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being 

here. I represent southeast Texas, the Sabine-Natchez riverway 

that divides Texas from Louisiana. On that riverway is the port of 

Beaumont and the port of Port Arthur. The port of Beaumont is the 

number one deployment port for shipping military cargo to Iraq. 

Along the riverway are numerous refineries including, soon to be 

the largest refinery in the United States, the Motiva refinery. We 

have small shippers who take crews out to the oil platforms. We 

have the refineries, we have the port. So I have several questions. 

First of all, Admiral, I want to commend the Coast Guard on the 

way they secure the riverway, even using up to half of their personnel or reservists all the way from Minnesota. 

But be that as it may, my concern is the fact that once 9/11 happened the refineries did not wait for the Government to come in 

and tell them to secure their refineries. Now they are under the 

control of the Department of Homeland Security. They have a 

model that is working. Many times these chemical plants require 

as many as 800 to 1,500 employees within 24 hours notice to show 

up and do repairs. During Hurricane Rita, which people do not talk 

27 

much about, it came up the Sabine-Natchez riverway. Those refineries closed for the first time in history, up to 25 or 30 years. And 

yet, they did not wait for FEMA to show up. They started working 

and repairing those refineries as soon as they could. 

Under the TWIC program, how long would it take to get these 

new employees screened before they could repair damages to refineries? When these refineries went down gasoline prices in the 

United States went up 20 percent during that period. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, there is provision where they could, 

again, wall off areas that would need special construction or repair. 

But also on a day-to-day basis, the facilities have the option of redefining the secure areas on the facility to limit it only to the marine portions of the facility. So that not everybody who goes to work 

at the refinery would necessarily need a TWIC, only those who 

have access to the marine portion. So there is a day-to-day component and the emergency component, as you pointed out, where that 

could be just walled off within their security plan, in consultation 

with the captain of the port. 

Mr. POE. Under Department of Homeland Security, these refineries and the chemical industry are already under a screening process that seems to work very well. No one wants refineries with personnel that are any potential threat. And chemical companies along 

the channel here say it is working well. Why now do we have to 

have another system that will override this current system that 

seems to be working? Why do we not use the same system that is 

currently working? I ask that of either one of you. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I am not familiar with the other system 

that you are referring to. 

Mr. POE. Well the Department of Homeland Security accepts 

screening processes by private contracting companies and they can 

have a turnaround very quickly on whether this person coming 

onto this plant is qualified, whereas TWIC will take however long, 

weeks. 

Admiral SALERNO. As far as access into the marine portion, I am 

not acquainted with the other vetting process that you are referring to, other than we did perform an interim vetting. Approximately a year or so ago, we began that process for regular workers 

at marine facilities. This was done in conjunction with TSA where 

we took names of employees and vetted them through a database 

and then, in consultation with the facilities, provided feedback. I 

am not sure if that is the process you are referring to. 

Mr. POE. The chemical plants have a system that works when 

they contract out to private screening industry that has a turnaround relatively quick. They have two types of employees at these 

chemical plants. They have people who have been working there for 

30 years, same job, and then they have contract laborers that come 

on on a regular basis to the chemical plants. They have both of 

these types of people coming on and they already have been 

screened under a process. Under TWIC, will all of these people 

have to be rescreened and have the delay of two or three weeks before they get this new TWIC card? My concern is we have a system 

that works according to the chemical companies and DHS, why are 

we trying to develop another unproven system to take precedence 

over this? 

28 

Admiral SALERNO. For access to the marine portion, sir, under 

the current regulations, they would need a TWIC. I would have to 

get back to you on the other method that you are referring to. I 

am not familiar with it. 

Mr. POE. Can TSA help me out here? 

Ms. FANGUY. I am not familiar about the private companies. But 

I do know that the checks that we do and the access to the information especially as it relates to terrorism is something that private companies would not have access to. So the TSA has access 

to a number of the different Watch Lists and information from law 

enforcement as well as intelligence that we feel is critical to keeping terrorists out of the ports and off of vessels. 

Mr. POE. Last question. Has there been any work with Department of Homeland Security that approves these methods at chemical plants with TSA to merge the process? Have there been discussions between Department of Homeland Security and TSA on this 

issue of chemical plant security? 

Ms. FANGUY. I can say that the chemical plant program within 

the Department of Homeland Security has been working closely 

with TSA so that we can take the lessons learned from doing security threat assessments that we do with MTSA for the aviation 

mode, hazardous materials endorsement, and other programs and 

apply that to the national program for the chemical plant workers. 

Mr. POE. So is that a yes? 

Ms. FANGUY. There have been talks, yes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, let me begin by 

saying I have got to express some concern that the folks you hired 

to do this are the same folks who did not think you should have 

waterproof radios, or waterproof radars, or waterproof GPS on the 

exposed bridge of your 110 foot cutters when they were modified. 

I would hope that someone, based on those mistakes, is looking for 

some very obvious things that are getting fixed before we have 60 

Minutes show us our mistakes again. 

Turning this over to contractors really makes me question. Just 

last week, I guarantee, up in New London you had about, what, 

500 bright young people from all over the country show up, the Nation is going to spend a small fortune to educate them, you are 

going to send them to sea, they are going to get better at what they 

do. Why the compulsion to contract out everything? 

Quite frankly, I look at this $137 fee, for a Congressman, nothing, but for somebody just out of high school, somebody who is in 

a jam, someone who needs to get a job in a hurry and the waterfront becomes available, that is a sizeable amount of money. I have 

got to believe that money is not going to the Treasury. It is going 

to go to the contractor. I have noticed where you have got a fee in 

there for somebody who has already got merchant mariner documents. So to just take a background check that has already apparently been done and rubber stamp it, a guy has got to pay another 

$100? Again, for an Admiral or a Congressman, not that big a deal. 

For somebody who is in a financial jam that is a lot of money. And 

again, I do not think it is Treasury-driven. I think it is contractorVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36689 JASON
29 

driven. We have been burned by some of these contractors already. 

So I have got to ask, where is the commonsense there? 

What I am seeing is you are going for a 100 percent solution and 

in the meantime you are not even doing simple things like checking 

driver’s licenses. I have got to believe, and Congressman Larsen 

agrees, that probably 95 percent of the people who walk through 

these doors already have a driver’s license. And amongst the 5 percent who do not are people who have probably done something really stupid that required them to forfeit their driver’s license. Maybe 

that ought to be a red flag right there that you have got a problem. 

So what is the Coast Guard, what are smart guys like you doing 

to try to reign this in and bring some commonsense to it? 

Second question. Most of the folks work offshore, 7 on, 7 off, 14 

on, 14 off, 30 on, 30 off. So the time they have ashore is really precious. And unlike a Congressman, they do not have a staffer to say 

go get this. They have got to do it themselves. So if they are out 

trying to get these documents, it is days they are not working, they 

only get paid when they work. What are you doing to keep that in 

mind? And again, some things just ought to be abundantly simple. 

If a guy walks to you with a reservist i.d. card, a driver’s license, 

and wants to go to work as a longshoreman, I would think that 

ought to be good enough right there for him to get an immediate 

document. So walk me through the commonsense efforts that are 

being made on the part of the Coast Guard to reign in the contractors, to bring some sense to all of this. 

Then I see the waiver that you have issued or at least you are 

talking about that says in the event of a national emergency, in effect, you can waive the Jones Act. Let me tell you what troubles 

me about that. I was just at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, where they 

are training people to go to Iraq. One of the drills they go through 

is they blow up a fake IUD under one of the vehicles to watch them 

react and then they blow up a second IUD because the first one 

was just a trap. If in the event of a national emergency we are 

going to waive the Jones Act, does that mean you are going to let 

a whole bunch of foreign ships in that you normally would have 

checked? Does that mean you are going to let a guy like me who 

does not have a merchant mariner document work for a little while 

because it is an emergency and you just need to throw guys into 

the breech but guys you know who are Americans? 

What exactly does that waiver mean, and are you qualifying that 

in some way? Yeah, it is an emergency, you have got to get stuff 

done. You will take people who have got an American driver’s license, you have got guys with a social security card, guys who may 

be naval reservists, let them go work on a tug for a while even 

though they do not have their merchant mariner documents. Or 

does it mean you are going to let a battled of Hondurans or El Salvadorans or whatever just come on in unchecked? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, a couple of questions there. Let me see if 

I can get them all. Certainly, for access to a facility—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Let us start with the common sense with the contractor and reigning those guys in. Because that is not a what if, 

they really did happen and it burns me to this day. 

Admiral SALERNO. If you do not mind, sir, I may have to defer 

to Ms. Fanguy on that since the contract is administered by TSA. 

30 

I will see if I can answer your other questions. There is a provision 

for Government-issued identification to be used as access to facilities, such as a military i.d. or law enforcement credential when the 

individual is acting in a law enforcement capacity. So that provision is there. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. All right. So why should that guy who has 

already got that who wants to upgrade to this card, why should he 

have to pay $100? That background check has already been conducted. 

Admiral SALERNO. The background checks are a little bit different, and Ms. Fanguy can explain that probably in more detail. 

But the TWIC requirement would be for people operating in a commercial capacity. If someone is going onto a facility in an official 

capacity, has official identification, that official i.d. would suffice. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. But according to this lady’s testimony, if you 

have already got a merchant mariner’s card, you still have got to 

pay, what, $125 to get it upgraded to a TSA card. That is nuts. 

That is literally somebody just raking in a bunch of money for 

doing almost nothing. That is not fair and we should not be about 

doing unfair things. 

Admiral SALERNO. Roger for the concern, sir. It is something that 

has been the subject of a great deal of discussion as to how the 

price can be brought down as much as possible throughout the 

rulemaking process. And a lot of interaction with the affected industry as well. And we did hear that concern loud and clear. 

The issue that I know TSA was up against was the program has 

to be self-sustaining. So with the work through their economists 

and figuring out what things would cost, that is about as low as 

they could get the price based on the cost predominantly on the 

background checks. The actual cost of producing the card is not 

that great. It is the cost of a lot of the work that goes behind it. 

Maurine can fill in some of the details. 

Ms. FANGUY. Yes. In terms of the reduced fee for, as the example 

that you mentioned, mariners, we really look at the overall cost of 

running the program. It is not just the security threat assessments, 

it is collecting the data and then actually doing the document authenticity verification. So we have checks at the upfront that when 

somebody presents an MMD, we want to make sure that that is a 

valid MMD and that it is not a forged document. Because we are 

then going to be giving somebody a credential that will grant them 

significant privileges in having unescorted access to secure areas. 

So we want to make sure that we are doing those checks at the 

upfront to make sure that the people’s information is correct. After 

we get that information, we do not do redundant checks if somebody already has the same kind of security threat assessment. So 

an MMD holder, we would not reconduct those checks, a Hazmat 

driver, nor a FAST cardholder. 

But there is a lot of work that goes on after somebody has actually applied. A card is good for five years. We continue to check 

people’s information during that time to. If somebody has no ties 

to terrorism on the day they apply for a TWIC, they are going to 

get a TWIC. If in two years from now we have intelligence that indicates that person may have ties to terrorism, we need to know 

that so we can rescind their TWIC and go out and find that person. 

31 

And so that is one of the aspects that actually costs money and 

that has been included in the fee for both the standard TWIC fee 

as well as the reduced TWIC fee is those redundant checks. 

There is also the cost of actually producing the credential itself. 

And as I talked about, it is a fairly sophisticated credential. So we 

need to be able to pay for the manpower in the Government facility 

that actually prints those cards, the card stock itself, and the card 

has a lot of security features in it just with the way we print it, 

there is laminate and holograms and the electronic pieces as well. 

And as the Admiral said, we have tried to reduce the costs as much 

as possible, and it is certainly something that we are very mindful 

of going forward and trying to be frugal with the program while 

still making sure that we have the right security controls in place. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Who gets the money? Does the contractor get the 

money? 

Ms. FANGUY. The contractor does not get all of the money. The 

contractor gets—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Who helped determine the cost? The same folks who 

said we do not need waterproof radios? 

Ms. FANGUY. Absolutely not. The Government was responsible 

for developing the regulations including the fee model. We put that 

out as part of our Notice for Proposed Rule Making where we had 

to lay out what all of our anticipated costs were. At the time that 

we developed our regulations, we actually did not have a contractor 

on board at all, so they were not at all involved. The Government 

was solely responsible for developing the overall fees. 

Mr. TAYLOR. And who made the decision to contract this out? Because I have got to tell you, everything I see the Department of 

Homeland Security doing is almost always contracted out and is almost always screwed up, whether it is the Federal Flood Insurance, 

whether it is FEMA, or whether it is this. You guys do not have 

a very good record of performance. And in almost every instance 

you have contracted out what should be a core governmental function. 

And so I want to know, who made this call? Was it mandated by 

Congress? Was it mandated by the Administration? Did someone 

within the Department of Homeland Security say this is the way 

we are going to do it? Who made that call? I doubt you made it. 

So who made it? 

Ms. FANGUY. The Government made the decision to establish a 

competitive process—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. No. Who? The Government is a big thing. 

Ms. FANGUY. The Department of Homeland Security made the 

decision to compete this. We did this in a competitive manner 

where we put this out to industry in a full and open competition. 

We received bids back from numerous companies who offered to do 

enrollment and manage our systems. If you look at the overall 

scope of the work that needs to be performed in the coming 

months, we are going to be bringing on a significant number of contractor resources, as you mentioned. So the overall number of resources and the types of skills that are necessary meant that we 

needed to compete this and get the best qualified contractor to perform the work. 

32 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We are running out of time. We have four minutes before the vote. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We have three votes. We are going to come back 

here at a quarter after twelve. 

To our witnesses, I want to thank you very much for your testimony. I must tell you that this has been extremely frustrating. I 

am going to bring you back in 90 days to let us know where you 

are. In the meantime, we will be submitting some questions and 

trying to get from you some time lines so we will know where we 

should be in 90 days so that we will have clarity. 

With that, we will suspend now and come back at a quarter after 

twelve. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ladies and gentlemen, we will proceed with the 

hearing. 

We will now hear from our second panel. Mr. Larry Willis, Mr. 

Michael Rodriguez, Mr. Thomas Allegretti, Mr. Otto Candies, Ms. 

Debbie Gosselin, Tamara Holder, please come forward. 

Before we start with you, Mr. Willis, let me say I have often 

questioned the good of hearings. And so I think so that we can be 

most effective and efficient, you all have been fortunate enough to 

have heard the testimony already and what we want to do is be 

most effective and efficient with your time, so, first of all, I am 

going to hold you to the five minutes. I want to move through this 

piece of the hearing quickly because a lot of us have other hearings 

that we have got to get to later on. 

But if you can, I know how it is when you have got a statement, 

you just feel like the world has got to hear it. I know. I know. Your 

kids are watching on C-SPAN and your co- workers and all that. 

I got it. All I ask you to do is make your statement as succinct as 

you can. But do something else. Tell us how we can address the 

problems after hearing what you have heard. Other than that, it 

does not do us a lot of good. 

We have heard the testimony. My plan is to take a lot of things 

that you say, present them to the Coast Guard and to TSA so that 

when I bring them back in 90 days, first of all I am going to try 

to get some type of timetable, and then I want to make sure that 

we try to get them to address your concerns. You have the advantage. You have been fortunate enough to have heard what they had 

to say. So all I am trying to do is get you to help us help you. 

So with that, Mr. Willis, five minutes. 

33 

TESTIMONY OF LARRY WILLIS, GENERAL COUNSEL, TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO; MICHAEL 

RODRIGUEZ, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND 

PILOTS; THOMAS ALLEGRETTI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS; OTTO CANDIES, III, SECRETARY/ 

TREASURER, OTTO CANDIES, LLC FOR OFFSHORE MARINE 

SERVICES ASSOCIATION; DEBBIE GOSSELIN, OWNER OF 

CHESAPEAKE MARINE TOURS/WATERMARK CRUISES, PASSENGER VESSEL ASSOCIATION; TAMARA HOLDER, REPRESENTATIVE FOR RAINBOW/PUSH ORGANIZATION 

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman LoBiondo and others, 

and I will try to follow your dictate. I will keep my comments 

under five minutes. Let me first thank you for inviting transportation labor to testify this morning, I guess afternoon now. 

We agree with the comments that have been made here, made 

by you, Mr. Chairman, and others that the TWIC program to be 

effective and to do it in the right way has to strike the right balance. It absolutely has to enhance security, but it also has to protect the legitimate rights of frontline workers, those that are represented by our 32 member unions, and it also has to ensure that 

you have the free flow of commerce. Because making sure that our 

guys can get to work everyday and go do their jobs, whether they 

be longshore workers, maritime workers that Mike Rodriguez will 

talk about in a second, rail workers that are also covered under 

this rule to the extent that they have unescorted access to a seaport, truck drivers and other workers is critical. 

We think on the criminal background check part, Congress generally got it right with the MTSA of 2002, that an individual 

should only be disqualified for their criminal activity if they have 

committed a crime within the past seven years or released from incarceration within the past five for an offense that causes that person to be a terrorism security risk. We always thought that was a 

pretty good standard and we did a lot of work with Members of this 

Committee and the Senate back in 2002. 

We are concerned, though, especially as we move to implementation of this program, that the offenses articulated by TSA and how 

they interpret those offenses and apply it criminal records, that we 

indeed want to accomplish the goal, which is to not have terrorist 

elements work in our seaports or our vessels, but not punish someone twice for simply making a bad decision several years ago that 

had nothing to do with terrorism. 

On that point, the waiver process that was included in the MTSA 

and that has been picked up by TSA in their regulations both for 

Hazmat and maritime TWIC, it is absolutely critical that a worker 

should have the opportunity to come forward and say yes, I committed a disqualifying offense but nonetheless I am not a security 

risk, and do that in a reasonable expediated fashion. TSA has told 

us, as they have told others, that on the Hazmat program they 

wished that more people would apply for waivers. I think it is 

going to be incumbent for TSA to make that process as easy to 

navigate as possible, to get information out. We are going to do 

that from obviously a union perspective. But it is a very large popVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36689 JASON
34 

ulation and I think TSA and the Coast Guard should be in the forefront of that. 

Let me make a comment about talk that is going on right now 

about the 9/11 bill. There is a provision that got in in the Senate 

that would codify the list of offenses that TSA has put out into 

statute. Members of this Committee, Members of the Homeland Security Committee on this side and others have expressed concern 

of whether the list of crimes that will disqualify a worker is appropriate. To the extent that conference committee is considering putting that into statute, that could run counter to that. 

We would hope that the Secretary would have some discretion to 

modify the offenses as this program goes forward. We would hope 

that the concept that someone would be disqualified from holding 

a TWIC simply for being indicted for a disqualifying offense should 

not be included in the legislation. And I wanted to raise that because I know that matter is being discussed and debated as we 

speak. 

On the waiver process, as was discussed in the first panel, the 

inclusion of an Administrative Law Judge to hear denial of waivers 

was another important priority for us and one that was included 

by this Committee and others in the Coast Guard reauthorization 

bill. We think that is a good right. We think that it will bring some 

fairness and balance to the program. But Mr. Chairman, as you 

pointed out in your opening statement, there has been some recent 

questions about the impartiality and the independence of Coast 

Guard ALJs that I think need to be understood and worked out. 

We are also concerned that as the process has been explained to 

us, even if an ALJ determines that a waiver should have been 

granted, TSA can appeal that back to itself and overrule the ALJ 

decision. So I guess we fundamentally question whether the ALJ 

process as envisioned by the Coast Guard and TSA is really going 

to be the independent review that Congress intended when it included it. 

Also, a lot of talk in the first panel about the cost. We are very 

concerned that 100 percent of the cost of the card is going to be 

imposed on individual workers. We hope that is something that can 

be reexamined. 

I see that my time is up so I will stop and let others speak. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I failed to give your title, Mr. Willis. I apologize. 

Mr. Willis is General Counsel for the Transportation Trades Department. 

Mike Rodriguez is Executive Assistant to the President of the 

International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots. Mr. 

Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I will cut to some of the more important parts of 

what I had prepared. I would agree with much of what Mr. Willis 

said. We are concerned about fairness in the determination of who 

is really a terrorism risk. But we also want to point out a couple 

of other points. 

The TWIC program must be a national program. We believe Congress envisioned a national maritime security system that would 

preempt State and local systems. Indeed, protecting our nation 

35 

from terrorist attacks is a national priority. However, the TWIC 

regulations allow State or local governments to impose their own 

duplicate systems. We feel this will result in higher costs and additional burdens for workers and vessel operators as they trade between States and even between facilities in the same State. We are 

also concerned about processing delays at the State and local levels. Congress should act to ensure that the Federal laws and regulations governing the TWIC program preempt all other State and 

local access control requirements for all transportation workers. 

The other point that we wanted to make is something along the 

lines of where the TSA has gone. We heard the first panel talk a 

little bit about the standard that they have adopted for the TWIC. 

We feel that is kind of at the heart of a lot of the delays. So the 

piece that I have here that is relevant is the TWIC program should 

be compatible with international systems. 

We have argued that the TWIC program should take advantage 

of proven biometric technology by using the International Civil 

Aviation Organization standards, or ICAO. The ICAO standards 

are simple, efficient, and recognized worldwide. Machine readable 

travel document control systems used by the United States for electronic passports that monitor entry of foreign travellers to the U.S. 

employ the ICAO standard. 

We feel the ICAO standard is the logical choice for a biometric 

security card that could be interoperable with the TWIC and the 

Seafarers’ Identity Documents that will be carried by the crews of 

foreign ships trading with the U.S. We feel the U.S. could have had 

a TWIC program up and running long before now had TSA adopted 

the ICAO standards and then developed the additional 

functionalities in partnership with the rest of the world. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will conclude my 

remarks there and look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tom Allegretti is President of the American Waterways Operators. 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. 

LoBiondo. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will respect 

the five minute rule and I will simply highlight our major concerns 

with the TWIC rule. 

Let me start by saying this is a truly big deal for America’s tugboat and towboat industry. AWO members from across the country 

have very serious concerns with the impact that this regulation is 

going to have on our industry and on the men and women who 

work in our industry. We have three major concerns. 

First, we are concerned that the continuing delay in the startup 

of the TWIC enrollment process makes it increasing difficult for 

mariners to obtain their TWIC cards before the deadline. The 

SAFE Port Act told DHS to begin TWIC enrollment on July 1 of 

this year, and it requires mariners to obtain their TWICs by September 25 of 2008. As the enrollment process continues to be delayed, the timeframe for mariners to obtain their TWICs continues 

to be shortened. DHS and Congress need to be prepared to extend 

the September 2008 deadline in order to allow mariners to obtain 

their TWICs without a last minute crisis. 

36 

Second, we are concerned that requiring card readers on small 

vessels like tugboats, towboats adds no practical security value at 

all either for the vessel itself or for the overall transportation system. The SAFE Port Act gives DHS the authority to limit the card 

reader requirement to vessels with more than a certain number of 

crew. We suggest that vessels with 12 or fewer crew members 

should not be required to have a card reader aboard the vessel. 

Third, our most significant concern is the process for obtaining 

a TWIC card and that it will become a significant barrier to entry 

in the maritime industry for new hires and that this is going to 

worsen the personnel shortage on our vessels. Mr. Chairman, this 

is a huge deal and unless Congress fixes it, companies face the 

prospect for tying up their boats for lack of crew members to operate them, and the nation faces the prospect of interruptions in the 

delivery of essential cargoes. 

The legislative change that was discussed by Congressman Baker 

and Chairman Oberstar during the markup of the Coast Guard authorization bill two weeks ago would go a long way towards solving 

this problem. The provision would allow a newly hired employee to 

work onboard a vessel for up to 90 days before, before making application for a TWIC. We urge the Committee to include a provision 

of this type in the manager’s amendment when the Coast Guard 

authorization bill goes to the House floor. 

Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that it is important to say that 

this provision in no way degrades the security that Congress meant 

to achieve through the MTSA 2000 law. The provision only applies 

to crew members who are working on vessels that are already operating in compliance with Coast Guard vessel security plans, and 

only applies to crew members who have both passed a preemployment drug test and a name- based check against the terrorist 

watch list. This is the same security screen conducted by the same 

Federal agency that is currently required by TSA’s existing interim 

work authority for new hires. We take security very seriously and 

we think that this provision is essential and in no way degrades 

maritime security. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just close with an observation and one that 

piggybacks on something you said in your opening remarks. Since 

9/11 the Federal Government has sought to enhance our security 

infrastructure. What they have not done very well in my view is 

to achieve a proper balance between new levels of security and 

other important national goals. 

In this case, the other significant goals that have suffered in the 

development of these regulations are those of providing economic 

and employment opportunities to American workers and keeping 

the commerce of our Nation flowing. These two goals are critical to 

our national health and vitality. And by not including a real interim work authority provision in its regulations, DHS has in our 

view not given proper attention to these other national priorities. 

Congress can lead the way to ensure the security of our country 

while also keeping mariners working, keeping vessels operating, 

and keeping the nation’s commerce flowing. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Candies is the Secretary and Treasurer of the Offshore Marine Services Association. Mr. Candies. 

37 

Mr. CANDIES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee 

Members. My name is Otto Candies, III, and I am testifying on behalf of the Offshore Marine Service Association, or OMSA. OMSA 

is the national trade association representing the owners and operators of vessels that support America’s offshore oil and gas industry. 

OMSA member vessels carry every piece of equipment and many 

of the workers needed to explore and produce our offshore energy 

resources. Our company and our industry takes its responsibilities 

very seriously, whether it is our responsibility to our customers or, 

in the case of security, the responsibility to the country and the 

American people. 

The Commandant has talked about the need to buy down risk in 

the maritime sector, and here are some of the things that our industry is already doing to buy down that risk. 

We have already worked with the Coast Guard to develop comprehensive industry-wide security plans for our vessels. 

We have trained and drilled our crews on the requirements of 

those security plans so that even the newest, least experienced 

mariner on one of our vessels understands his or her responsibility 

to maintain security. 

Significantly, the Coast Guard puts our mariners through one of 

the most vigorous background checks of any mariners in the world. 

Far and away, we believe that the biggest factor in buying down 

risk offshore is a requirement that our vessels be owned by Americans and crewed by Americans. That one thing is key to protecting 

our maritime sector from foreign terrorists who would use our vessels as weapons. On the other hand, if U.S. citizens working on 

U.S.-flagged vessels in U.S. waters increase our security, anything 

that creates an obstacle to putting U.S. citizens to work or discourages U.S. citizens from wanting to go to sea reduces our security. 

With that in mind, we are concerned that the TWIC program as 

currently envisioned will subject our mariners to an overly complex, overly expensive process that will discourage Americans from 

seeking a career in the maritime industry. Let me be clear, our industry supports background checks. However, if the system is too 

cumbersome and expensive, if the long wait for a TWIC card makes 

it too difficult to recruit people into our industry, it will harm our 

ability to maintain security. 

We are also concerned over the confusion and changes in the 

TWIC program. The regulations say that mariners must obtain a 

TWIC card by September 2008. With the delays that we have seen 

thus far in implementing the process, we are concerned about that 

deadline for mariners. That looming deadline is another source of 

uncertainty and worry for mariners. We need only to look at the 

recent change in the passport requirements to see what an overly 

short deadline can do to the processing system. That sudden demand on a system that was not prepared for it resulted in thousands of Americans being inconvenienced. The same kind of delay 

in TWIC processing could cripple our industry. 

At the very least, we feel that the deadline for mariners should 

be delayed by 12 months, to September of 2009. However, we suggest the agencies go one step further. That they implement the 

processing for non-mariners, allowing that backlog to clear, and 

38 

then implementing TWIC for mariners on vessels. Remember, this 

will not degrade security because our mariners are already undergoing a Coast Guard check that is more thorough than the TWIC 

security check. On the contrary, by implementing the shore side 

TWIC requirements first, you allow those workers to obtain their 

cards without facing the crush of 200,000-plus mariners trying to 

get their cards at the same time. 

We are also very concerned about the potential requirement for 

TWIC readers on our vessels. We oppose this for the following reasons: 

The MTSA does not require readers and we do not believe that 

Congress intended for there to be readers on the vessels. The agencies have pushed for that concept over the near universal opposition of the maritime industry. By OMSA’s very rough estimates, 

the readers and personnel to keep them in operation could cost our 

fleet alone more than $100 million. Yet the agencies have never 

shown that the readers on vessels reduce risk in a cost effective 

manner. 

While we agree that the background checks provide companies 

with an effective way to vet prospective mariners in the hiring 

process, readers in the vessels would be more of a hindrance than 

a help. 

We question the reliability of the readers on offshore vessels. Our 

work takes us from the hot, humid waters of the Gulf of Mexico 

to the frigid waters of the Arctic. There have been no tests to prove 

that these readers can work under these conditions. 

Finally, we understand that there is an amendment, which was 

mentioned earlier by Congressman Baker, that would allow newly 

hired employees to go to work while their TWIC cards are being 

processed. We agree with that concept and, indeed, have made 

similar recommendations. But the amendment as it is offered is 

unnecessarily limited. If it was expanded to include offshore vessels 

and passenger vessels, then it would receive our wholehearted support. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Debbie Gosselin is the owner of the Chesapeake Marine 

Tours/Watermark Cruises company and a member of the Passenger 

Vessel Association. Thank you very much for being with us. 

Ms. GOSSELIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity today. My name is Debbie Gosselin. 

I am owner of Watermark Cruises, and I am here to ask for your 

assistance in changing the TWIC requirements so that they do not 

cripple my small business and many others across the country like 

mine. 

We have been in business since 1972 in Annapolis, Maryland. We 

have 11 Coast Guard-inspected, U.S.-flagged passenger vessels, 

with capacities from 17 to 297 passengers. I will cut short my comments about the card readers and say that I echo everything that 

Mr. Candies said about the card readers. 

Watermark and PVA understand the need for and support rational security measures. Our vessels operate in compliance with 

an approved security plan, as required by MTSA. We completed our 

risk-based threat assessment, identified our vulnerabilities, and established procedures to control access to the restricted areas of our 

39 

vessels. We have led the industry in our area with our extensive 

security training and crew drills, at considerable cost. 

We believe that a company like mine, a small one, does not need 

an electronic TWIC card or a reader for that card to know that our 

crew members are who they say they are when they show up to 

work. Here is a picture of three of our regular crew members here. 

They are the same Sam and Karly and Bill that we interviewed, 

hired, and trained. There are other methods, such as traditional 

background checks, company i.d. cards, and simple recognition by 

sight, that can be used to verify the status of employees at little 

or no cost to the small employer. All of our captains and crew are, 

of course, U.S. citizens. We are a completely domestic operation. 

Our vessel operation depends on a seasonal workforce, and that 

is the focus of my comments. Last year we hired 80 seasonal employees, many of whom would have to get a TWIC. For every one 

that was hired and showed up to work, there were at least four 

candidates for those positions. We compete aggressively with other 

businesses for good seasonal employees. Our competitors are hotels, 

marinas, and restaurants. These are not subject to TWIC. 

Most of our seasonal employees are college or high school students who need a job when school gets out to make the money they 

need for school next year. They are only available for 90 to 100 

days. They cannot apply for summer employment and then wait 30 

days for an i.d. card. They cannot even wait two weeks, and neither 

can I. They cannot afford to pay for the TWIC card, so I would be 

forced to pay. 

And there are other costs associated, as you know, with getting 

the cards which I will not go into, because the bottom line for me 

is that if I asked these kids to make this trip, no matter who pays 

for it, they are just going to simply work elsewhere. It is too much 

trouble for a summer job. And I am lucky to have an enrollment 

center that is only a hour away, unlike many of our PVA members. 

In its recently issued implementation guidance, the Coast Guard 

says that an employee can to be put to work for an interim period 

based on the applicant’s preliminary background check while the 

TWIC application is being processed. I do not need sophisticated 

card biometrics to recognize my employees. Why cannot this background check be sufficient, thereby avoiding the issuance of the expensive and unnecessary card? If each employee on my boat could 

be checked by the FBI and TSA, would that not accomplish Congress’ goal of knowing who is on our vessels? 

And I said I would not get into the card readers. We are going 

to participate in one of the prototype testing. I am looking forward 

to that. It is going to be very interesting to find out where they are 

going to put this thing. They may just have to nail it to a piling 

at the end of City Dock in Annapolis. We have a public access facility there. 

I believe that an appropriate level of security can be achieved 

without unnecessarily harming American small businesses like 

mine. But changes in the TWIC requirement are essential to accomplish this. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Tamara Holder represents Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. She 

and Reverend Jesse Jackson were some of the folks who brought 

40 

this issue to my attention after becoming Chairman almost immediately after I got the position. So thank you very much for being 

with us, Ms. Holder. 

Ms. HOLDER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cummings 

and Members of Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

on behalf of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Reverend Jesse Jackson, 

Senior, and, most importantly, I am speaking on behalf of over 100 

men who I represent as an attorney who are employed in Chicago 

as America’s railway workers. 

I have very little knowledge about the TWIC legislation and the 

maritime industry. However, I have basically become an expert in 

this pseudo TWIC program that was implemented possibly 

throughout the country on America’s railroads. I am here to provide you with our expectation of the serious problems that will 

occur if certain TWIC standards are not more carefully defined before they are implemented. I am shocked that we presented this 

case back in November to Congress and there have been no hearings as to the impact that this has had on the rail industry and 

how that could transfer over into maritime. 

The railroads took recommended action items from the Hazmat 

program, applied similar standards to the employees of the railroads’ contractors, and they did not give much thought to the consequences. I represent men and women who have worked on the 

yards for as many as 13 years. They were forced to submit to background checks in the name of homeland security, they were denied 

access, they were not given a reason why they were denied access, 

and they were left with no answers, very little appeals process, and 

basically no job and no money to provide for their families. Furthermore, the vendors were threatened that if they did not comply 

they would face fines, they would lose their contracts, so their 

backs were against the wall as well. 

To further explain this, I am here to forewarn you that we anticipate three problems with the TWIC program, if it is implemented 

immediately. And that is the issue of crimes of concern, the reporting of these crimes, and the appeals waiver process. We really feel 

that you need a bit more time before this program is implemented. 

Crimes. None of my clients have similar stories. There are some 

who have one felony conviction, others have a felony and multiple 

arrests, other have misdemeanors that may fall under crimes of 

concern. I would like you to go back to the history books. History 

notes that African-American inmates worked on the railroads in 

the chain gangs, and the movies depict mafia ex-cons working on 

the ports of the East Coast. Although these are people who have 

felony convictions, they are not terrorists in the traditional sense 

of the word. Also, these men who are convicted felons, they know 

that they can get jobs on the railroad. They go to actual reentry 

employment programs and get placement on the railroads. I asked 

each of my clients what would happen is a terrorist walked onto 

the yard, a traditional terrorist, and they said they would immediately report it and they would never allow somebody onto the 

property. So they are a second layer of security. 

None of my clients represent the traditional permanently disqualifying offenses of terrorism, espionage, or treason. These are 

people who have committed crimes of drug and gun offenses, also 

41 

there are murders on the yard. Most of these men lack formal education or GED. Many of them do not have options before they become convicted felons because of the environment they grew up in. 

They become convicted felons and they have even less options. We 

understand the need for a screening process but it needs to be 

more defined. It cannot be so vague. 

These interim disqualifying offenses do not make sense. I have 

a client who has a misdemeanor gun possession that is sealable in 

the State of Illinois. Would that disqualify him? This five to seven 

year period needs to be more clearly defined. I have a client who 

actually won an appeal, however, he is on parole, and this was for 

a murder case. So he is back on the yard even though murder 

under TWIC is a permanent disqualifying offense. Also, I would 

like you to consider that many people in America have substance 

abuse issues and that does not relate to terrorism. We have people 

who had DUI felony convictions and they do not have a license, and 

therefore they were barred. 

As far as reporting goes, we feel that this is the most essential 

element to the program. Background checks must be done more 

thoroughly. In almost every case I reviewed, the screener looked at 

the applicant’s records superficially and made a swift determination without looking into the record. For example, one client was 

originally charged with felony possession with intent to deliver, but 

the charge was amended to a misdemeanor possession of cannabis 

to which he pled guilty. What they reported was the arrest for the 

felony and the guilty conviction. They did not go through the record 

thoroughly. The process may be a bit more time consuming, but if 

the cost is on the applicant, he must be entitled to a thorough 

background check. It is not his duty to prove that a report was inaccurate. These screeners are people who sit in the clerks office 

and just type away on a computer. 

Another problem is that an applicant’s FBI records and fingerprints are not necessarily thorough enough. I have a client who 

was held on a murder charge and they reported that to the FBI, 

except when he was released that was not reported. This man lost 

his job. Furthermore, although the Fair Credit Reporting Act does 

not apply to these people, I believe that the standards should apply 

to the TWIC program. A copy of one’s record should be given to 

them prior to adverse action being taken so that they can review 

it. It should not be a process where they ask for the report that 

they paid for. 

As far as the appeal and waivers process, all citizens of this 

country should be afforded equal protection of the laws. However, 

this fundamental right was stripped from these contractor employees because they were not afforded a due process opportunity. The 

railroads did attempt to create some kind of appeals process but 

because there was no original standard for the disqualifying offenses, there was no formal appeals process. The terminated men 

were given letters of denial, which is similar to what TWIC will do. 

They were not given a copy of their background check. They were 

not given guidance as to how to get their job back. It was even stated on the first panel that the person needs to take advantage of 

the appeal. Well if they do not know about an appeal, how do they 

take advantage of it? 

42 

Members of Congress, many of these employees will not be able 

to properly read or write. Rainbow/PUSH and I worked together 

with about 30 people writing their appeals for them. 

As far as this ALJ hearing, where is it going to be located? Do 

people in California have to travel to the one location that has the 

appeal address that currently is listed, from California across the 

country for an appeal? Some were told to submit their appeals via 

email. 

We represent men who have been on the yards for over a decade 

and these men are dedicated to their jobs. They want to go to work. 

They have been rehabilitated. And we ask that you further look 

into this pseudo-type TWIC program to get some of the answers 

that you have asked of the panel. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rodriguez or Mr. Willis, you both have indicated that you believe the TWIC program should preempt all of the State and local 

access control requirements. Do you believe that there are legitimate local security concerns that a State or local jurisdiction may 

need to address that are not addressed by the TWIC security program? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as I stated in my remarks, this 

is a national concern. And in order to balance the needs of this program, security and the facilitation of commerce, we believe that it 

is the role of the Congress to set the standard for the system and 

to make it uniform throughout. To answer your question in another 

way. Sure, every facility has a right to protect itself, to put up a 

system that it believes is going to be secure. 

But still we have this other aspect that we have to be aware of. 

We are talking today about workers in the maritime industry. I am 

hearing now about the rail workers. There are truckers who are 

going to come under this security system. So to the extent that we 

have to balance the needs of security and facilitate commerce, I believe that this needs to be a Federal system. 

Mr. WILLIS. I would agree with the comments that Mike just 

made. When Congress put this in place in MTSA, even before that 

when TWIC was envisioned as TSA sort of sees it, it was supposed 

to be a national program. You are supposed to do a security check 

at the national level. 

And for our guys to go do that, to go pay $139 or whatever the 

cost ends up being, and then to have to get a duplicative card or 

a duplicative check depending on what port or what State or what 

vessel that you may be operating is just going to create an additional burden that, quite frankly, is unnecessary because TSA has 

made a threat assessment based on a criminal review, based on an 

immigration check, based on their terrorist watch list. So we think 

that is sufficient. We would like to see Congress preempt that or 

TSA preempt that. If we are going to do this, let us do this once. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Willis, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Allegretti, and I 

guess Ms. Holder, all of you talked about this issue of past criminal 

activities. The more I listened to the earlier testimony, I can see 

where you would have a whole lot of appeal situations. You would 

have a lot of cases because of the fact that, several of you have 

said, you have folks who may have limited educations, they may 

have done something years ago, they have straightened their lives 

43 

out, they are in a position now where they are taking care of their 

family, they are working every day, they have a great work record, 

and the next thing you know they have no job. On the other hand, 

we are trying to make sure that we address the issues of national 

security. And I take it that what you all are saying is that, and 

correct me if I am wrong, that you want to have the national security but you want to make sure that any kind of disqualifying decisions are consistent with a reasonable likelihood that somebody has 

done something connected with national security. Is that right? 

Mr. WILLIS. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you think that a number of your members 

would be affected by this, Mr. Allegretti? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think so. I have heard a 

lot on this subject from our members. Much of what I hear is consistent with what many Members of the Committee said this morning. It is looking at the issue of risk. What is the risk profile of the 

people we are trying to keep out of our industry? We are not trying 

to keep someone out of the industry who may not qualify to be a 

choirboy at the Vatican. We are trying to keep someone out of the 

industry who poses a national security threat. 

And when you look at the folks who are in our industry, they 

may not have a purely pristine background, but there is plenty of 

evidence to suggest that many of those folks deserve a second 

chance and when given a second chance become very productive, 

stable, reliable crew members aboard our vessels and the vessels 

of many of the folks represented here. And so I think it is really 

an issue of evaluating the risk profile of the candidate and having 

that metric be national security. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Gosselin, one of the things that you mentioned, and it just took me back to some of the issues that Mr. Taylor raised, this whole idea of the cost for the TWIC cards. I take 

that these young people work during the summer; is that right? 

Ms. GOSSELIN. Yes, sir, primarily. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How many of them do you have working on average during the summer? 

Ms. GOSSELIN. During the summer this year, so far we have 

hired 26 deckhands. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. So that means that you would have to be paying 26 times $137. 

Ms. GOSSELIN. And multiply that by four because you have to 

pay for the potential employees and we get four applications for 

every person that we actually put to work. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So that is a problem. 

Ms. GOSSELIN. That is a problem in itself. And even larger for 

me is that I think that our students will go to the restaurant or 

marina or hotel right next door rather than deal with this, even if 

I pay for it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you all have anything that you would like for 

us, you heard the testimony—and by the way, we will give you a 

few days, so if you get back to office and think of some other 

things—things that you would like for us to address to our witnesses that appeared a little earlier? You can tell me now, or if you 

have some things, let me know. Let me give you an example of 

what I am talking about. One of the things that when they were 

44 

talking about the readers, you may have heard me mention I met 

with some folks in my office who were small operators, just the 

types of things that you are talking about, Ms. Gosselin, and they 

were saying that because they are so small they do not know how 

this would work. That is why we spent some time trying to address 

how does all of this work when have these situations like with your 

boats, Ms. Gosselin, and others. So those kind of unique questions. 

Sometimes I think there is a divide between those who make policy and folks who have to deal with policy, who actually have to 

deal with the results of what we do. So I just want to make sure 

that you have every opportunity so that we can at least present 

those issues. I do not want you to spend a year to tell me this. And 

you do not have to say anything. But if there are things that you 

really want us to address, and I want you to be short. 

Ms. Gosselin? 

Ms. GOSSELIN. I think the first thing is what you talked to the 

Admiral about; and that is, to make sure that the pilot program, 

the testing program is completed before they write the regulations. 

There is concern among all of us that the regulations are being 

written and will come out simultaneously with the end of the testing. We want to make sure that the testing produces the regulation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. Mr. Allegretti? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Mr. Chairman, I think the record on the Government panel was left a little muddled and I would like to clarify 

for the Committee’s consideration. In response to the question 

about why they do not like the interim work authority that is 

under consideration by the Full Committee, they talked about a 

couple of things. They mentioned the inability to track an individual who would be put through this interim work authority process. They absolutely have the ability. Once that person goes into 

Homeport and has cleared the terrorist watch list, notification is 

provided back to the company that is dated and that document will 

be aboard the vessel for any Coast Guard boarding officer to look 

at. 

On the issue of funding, they suggested that perhaps there would 

be an absence of the Government’s ability to collect a fund because 

we are pushing off the TWIC application. Well, the Government 

would not incur the cost of the TWIC application if we pushed it 

off for 90 days. Also, that process of running people through the 

terrorist watch list is a very low cost process and one that the 

agency has actually already used to clear port workers and longshoremen. So we are not asking for something that they have not 

already done without the requirement for Government funding. 

And the final point, very briefly, is that what we are asking for 

here differs not at all from the current regulation that was published by the agency. We are simply asking to change the order so 

that someone new coming aboard does not have to do as their very 

first order of business travel to a TWIC center. All of the other elements of clearing that person’s background will remain the same. 

I would like the record to be clear on that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Going back to something 

that I mentioned before in my remarks about preemption, there is 

45 

also a problem that we have in getting our sailors, our mariners 

on and off their ships, on and off their vessels, crossing through facilities. I think something that Mr. Poe touched on earlier was the 

chemical facility security regulations. 

We are a little surprised that the Coast Guard and the TSA were 

unaware of the rulemaking that came out last winter, early spring. 

We provided comments that there should be a way for an MTSA 

regulated facility, a marine facility that is on a chemical production 

facility, there should be a way for those mariners to have access 

to shore leave and those kinds of things. Very important issue for 

us. 

I would also like the Congress, your Committee to look at the 

ILO Convention 185 that talks about using the ICAO standards, 

the International Civil Aviation Organization standards for Seafarers’ Identity Documents. Right now, the way the TWIC program 

is structured, we are looking at ourselves, we are looking at Americans. Probably 95 percent of the vessels coming into this country 

are foreign flags with foreign crews. Eventually they will carry Seafarers’ Identity Documents that will comply with the ILO 185 Convention. So we would like you to look at that. We would be very 

happy to come in and talk to you about what all that means. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Willis? 

Mr. WILLIS. I think there are several issues to talk to TSA and 

the Coast Guard about. First, as TSA mentioned, the background 

check that they are going to do for maritime TWIC is basically 

identical to the background they have done for the Hazmat program and are doing for the Hazmat program. I think it would be 

interesting to ask them to ask them how they are dealing with the 

appeal/waiver issues. How many of these waivers are actually 

granted? Why are they denying waivers? What are some of the 

crimes in the background that they really have a problem with? 

Are people not re-upping for the Hazmat CDL because of this 

background check process? How many workers are being lost in 

that industry? That I think is going to be a problem in that industry. But I think if you go to the port, maritime side of things, it 

is going to be even more important. 

I think also asking who is really looking, and Mr. Chairman, I 

think you raised this in the first panel, who is really looking at 

these criminal records? Are they trained to do it? Is this a TSA 

function, is this a contractor function? Does TSA have some obligation to make sure that when they look at the criminal records from 

the FBI that they are accurate. There have been a number of problems, and Ms. Holder mentioned this in her opening statement, 

with the accuracy of these records. There has to be some affirmative duty on TSA’s part to make sure that what they are looking 

at is accurate. 

And finally, the whole ALJ process that, again, originated in this 

Committee, it originated with then Chairman Don Young in the 

Coast Guard reauthorization bill, that that is going to be a program that is going to work as designed and will actually provide 

workers with a real, independent process. Because I think, as it 

has been laid out, there is going to be a limited number of ALJs 

in a limited number of cities. And the ability I think of TSA to appeal an adverse decision back to itself is troubling to us. 

46 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Candies? 

Mr. CANDIES. Just one observation that I wanted to make. I 

think everyone has pretty much already mentioned the same concerns that I would have. The observation I had is I noticed, despite 

the varying backgrounds of the people here, the consistency of the 

concerns that they have. None of the concerns were with the idea 

of security. I think everyone here has pretty clearly stated that 

they are in favor of that. It is with the functionality of this process 

and making sure that we do not introduce yet another barrier to 

entry for the workers that we are already having difficulty obtaining and retaining. So that was the observation that I had from the 

comments that were made and what echoed the comments that the 

other panelists made. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Holder? 

Ms. HOLDER. We would like you to look into this pseudo- TWIC 

pilot program that was instituted on the rail industry. I think it 

could provide you with a lot of answers as to what you can expect. 

The crimes, they really do need to be more thoroughly defined. It 

seems that they are extraordinarily broad. The appeals process, 

like Mr. Willis stated, needs to be fair and independent. 

And also, what is the time period? These people are waiting 

around for months and months and months. It is not going to be 

a 30 or 60 day period; there is no way of that. And the background 

check training, who is really looking into these records. Also, when 

we brought the issue to TSA, they said they had people on the 

ground investigating the issue. I would like to ask TSA what did 

your investigation of the railroad case reveal. And if it revealed 

anything at all, then how can we use the revelations to apply it to 

the TWIC program. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. Mr. Taylor? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of our witnesses. 

Cutting to the quick, Mr. Chairman, I am less convinced of the 

need for this card than I was a year ago. And I will give you a for 

instance. Both Mr. Candies’ State and my State were hit very hard 

by Hurricane Katrina. Congress responded in a number of ways, 

one of which was a very generous program for homeowners who 

lived outside the flood plain, who had homeowners insurance, and 

were flooded. They could apply for up to $150,000, but part of that 

was they had to agree to buy Federal flood insurance in perpetuity 

so that this did not happen to them again. 

Well, just a couple of weeks ago over in the Financial Services 

Committee, David Maurstad, who is head of the Federal Flood Insurance program, testified that he was not going to follow up on 

that requirement. So a person gets $150,000, signs a contract to 

participate in a Federal Flood Insurance program forever, and here 

is the head of the Federal Flood Insurance program saying he did 

not have the resources to follow up on that $150,000 gift from our 

nation, which again, tremendously generous to the people in Mississippi, tremendously generous to the people in Louisiana. 

And so it has really got to make you wonder. If one department 

of Homeland Security is too lazy to follow through, why are we 

going through this $137 rigmarole that I have zero confidence that 

they are going to do any better job of following up on. 

47 

And so I think all of these panelists have made some excellent 

points. Ms. Gosselin, that obviously looks like a bunch of terrorists 

to me that you have presented to this Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TAYLOR. By the way, my teenage daughter would like to 

meet some of them. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GOSSELIN. She would have fun. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. So I think they have made some excellent 

points. And if there is anything I am convinced of today, it is that 

the Commandant needs to come talk to us and walk this Committee through what exactly is it that he hopes to accomplish with 

this program. And if he cannot make a compelling case for it, then 

my opinion would be that we just suspend it or outright kill it right 

now. If they cannot do a better case of saying what it is they are 

trying to accomplish, how they are going to accomplish it, and what 

this is going to do instead of making these kids and young people 

all over the country want to go to work for Mr. Candies and others. 

Again, in the case of the merchant mariner documents, which is 

a fairly extensive background check, the idea of making them pay 

another $125 just to rubber stamp a background check that has already been done, that is not fair. That is not right. And we should 

not be about that. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses. I think you have all made 

some very compelling arguments. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I, too, want to thank all of the witnesses. And 

I want you to understand what you do for us. You help us connect 

the dots. Again, there is policy over here—it is sort of like what I 

tell my staff, my scheduler. I say, you make out my schedule, but 

while you are asleep I am still carrying out that schedule, so be 

careful how you make my schedule. That is a fact. And I think 

most Members of Congress probably feel the same way. The fact is 

that we make policy but we need you all to tell us how that plays 

out. So this has been extremely helpful. 

Again, I hope you understand what I was trying to do. I am just 

trying to make sure that your testimony is as effective and efficient 

as it possibly can be. I just do not want you to come here, say a 

few words, and then it is over. What we are going to do is follow 

up. And I agree with Mr. Taylor. It is one thing if you are truly 

doing what you say you are going to do. But I will tell you that 

our experience with Deepwater has left many of us on both sides 

of the aisle, and I think you could feel the frustration, this is not 

just one side of the aisle opinion, both sides are very, very concerned about this program. 

So again, if you have some suggestions, you really do need to get 

them to me by Monday at the close of business. Any thing that perhaps you may think of when you get home, get back to your offices 

or what have you that you want us to ask. 

Thank you very, very much. Thank you for spending your morning here with our Committee. 

With that, we will end this hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


36689.007
49 


36689.008
50 


36689.009
51 


36689.010
52 


36689.011
53 


36689.012
54 


36689.013
55 


36689.014
56 


36689.015
57 


36689.016
58 


36689.017
59 


36689.018
60 


36689.019
61 


36689.020
62 


36689.021
63 


36689.022
64 


36689.023
65 


36689.024
66 


36689.025
67 


36689.026
68 


36689.027
69 


36689.028
70 


36689.029
71 


36689.030
72 


36689.031
73 


36689.032
74 


36689.033
75 


36689.034
76 


36689.035
77 


36689.036
78 


36689.037
79 


36689.038
80 


36689.039
81 


36689.040
82 


36689.041
83 


36689.042
84 


36689.043
85 


36689.044
86 


36689.045
87 


36689.046
88 


36689.047
89 


36689.048
90 


36689.049
91 


36689.050
92 


36689.051
93 


36689.052
94 


36689.053
95 


36689.054
96 


36689.055
97 


36689.056
98 


36689.057
99 


36689.058
100 


36689.059
101 


36689.060
102 


36689.061
103 


36689.062
104 


36689.063
105 


36689.064
106 


36689.065
107 


36689.066
108 


36689.067
109 


36689.068
110 


36689.069
111 


36689.070
112 


36689.071
113 


36689.072
114 


36689.073
115 


36689.074
116 


36689.075
117 

Æ 


36689.076