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

75–376 PDF 2012

A REVIEW OF THE DELAYS AND PROBLEMS 

ASSOCIATED WITH TSA’S TRANSPORTATION 

WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL 

(112–91) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 28, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Kelli Ann Walther, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Screening Coordination Office, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .............. 5 

Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, 

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

PANEL TWO

Joseph Lawless, Director of Maritime Security, Massachusetts Port Authority, 

on behalf of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) ................. 14 

Lindsay McLaughlin, Legislative Director, International Longshore and Warehouse Union .......................................................................................................... 14 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Kelli Ann Walther and Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, joint statement ............. 24 

Joseph Lawless ........................................................................................................ 30 

Lindsay McLaughlin ................................................................................................ 33 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

United States Coast Guard, insert for the record regarding a timeframe 

for the adoption of TWIC card reader requirements ......................................... 9 

Joseph Lawless, Director of Maritime Security, Massachusetts Port Authority, 

on behalf of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), letter 

responding to request from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Washington, for an estimate on what it will cost the 

ports to install TWIC card readers, July 12, 2012 ............................................ 20 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council, letter to Hon. 

John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, July 18, 

2012 ....................................................................................................................... 40 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75376.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75376.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75376.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75376.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75376.005
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE DELAYS AND PROBLEMS 

ASSOCIATED WITH TSA’S TRANSPORTATION 

WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL 

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (Chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee of the House to order. Today we are 

conducting a hearing relating to delays and problems associated 

with TSA and Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation 

Worker Identification Credentials. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have two panels here, 

I see, and we have quite a busy agenda on a number of fronts 

today, so we will try to expedite this process and hearing as expeditiously as possible. 

The order of business will be opening statements by Members 

and then we will turn to our witnesses. I will start by beginning 

with a brief opening statement. 

We are here today many years after we have attempted to implement putting into place a transportation worker identification card. 

This process has gone on since 2002, and, unfortunately, I can’t 

think of too many programs in Government that have had more 

delays, more costs to the taxpayers, and more incidents of failing 

to perform than the so-called TWIC effort. 

I am most disappointed that we are here. Time after time, we 

have been promised in this hearing room and also in Government 

Reform that the program would put in place measures that would 

allow us to identify who is going in and out of our ports in a secure 

manner and that we would have a card, an identification card for 

those workers that had a biometric capability, both fingerprint and 

iris, and that we would have readers that could read those cards. 

Now, we are faced with cards having been issued—what, 2 million cards?—and at substantial cost to the Federal Government. It 

is estimated this whole program is going to cost $3.2 billion over 

10 years. We still do not have a completion of the biometric requirements that were asked for years ago, promised to us in a 

number of hearings. We do have other agencies that help set those 

standards. However, even having those agencies before us and 

their commitment to developing some acceptable standards has yet 

2 

to result in accomplishment on the side of iris-recognition biometric 

factors. 

So here we are almost on the eve of renewal and now we are 

going to face again the cost of deploying cards that have become 

almost a joke with the transportation community. Here is a Federal ID that cost money that is supposed to help us be secure, and 

it is actually not acceptable; some other form of identification needs 

to be accompanying that document. 

Additionally what baffles me is there are other agencies who 

have developed identification credentials over a much longer period 

of time, and so we are somewhat reinventing the wheel and at 

great public expense and delay in implementing this. 

Finally, what it has done is made the whole process, again, I 

think, a disappointment that we cannot issue, again, the card that 

would keep us secure, provide adequate identification, and do it in 

a cost-efficient manner and in a timely manner. 

Many questions remain. I have not been pleased with the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security, but we do have 

a witness here today. TSA continues to ignore the committee, and 

I will consult with my colleagues, if necessary, to subpoena witnesses from TSA to get their response, which I think this committee deserves. 

So I am not a happy camper this morning with the status, the 

delays, and, again, the total ineffectiveness of putting a very important program together. 

I am pleased that we have a representative of the Coast Guard. 

They have been cooperative, but I don’t want them to be the fall 

guy for others who are making decisions at a higher level, or 

should be making decisions at a higher level, taking actions, and 

having not completed those responsibilities. 

So, with that, I will yield to Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I am eager to hear from this morning’s witnesses, 

and I will be brief in my opening remarks. 

In the relatively short history of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, it is no understatement to say that 

the development and implementation of this program has been, at 

best, dismal and its record of achievement disappointing. These 

problems transcend Presidential administrations. 

Intended by the Congress to be a key element in securing our 

Nation’s maritime transportation infrastructure from terrorist attacks, the TWIC program since its inception has been beset by a 

litany of problems. Excessive cost, administrative inefficiencies, 

technical biometric glitches, and confusing or burdensome enrollment requirements routinely surface as common faults expressed 

by my constituents. 

The Government Accountability Office questions whether the 

TWIC has actually improved the security of our vessels, ports, and 

maritime infrastructure at all. Indeed, considering the fact that 

over 2 million TWICs have been issued at a cost to seafarers and 

other maritime transportation workers of more than $250 million, 

this is sad commentary. 

Fortunately, recent events reveal that both the administration 

and Congress are now giving the TWIC program the type of scruVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:00 Sep 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\6-28-1~1\75376.TXT JEAN
3 

tiny it deserves. For example, since March, this will be the third 

TWIC oversight hearing. Additionally, this Tuesday, the House 

considers legislation to require the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to reform the TWIC enrollment and renewal processes and to require, in total, only one in-person visit to a designated enrollment 

center. 

The Coast Guard expects to publish regulations in the Federal 

Register later this year regarding requirements for TWIC electronic 

readers. Moreover, on June 15th, the administration announced a 

new policy authorizing 3-year extensions of expiring TWICs at half 

the cost of a full 5-year renewal. This new extended expiration 

date, or EED, policy has generally been greeted very positively by 

mariners and other transportation workers. 

Despite these recent helpful steps, much work remains to be 

done. To that extent, I am optimistic that this morning’s hearing 

will serve up additional recommendations on how the administration and Congress might best address TWIC’s remaining flaws. My 

view is that the Congress and especially this committee shares responsibility with the administration to work collaboratively to finally deliver the type of security program first envisioned when 

Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. 

No one contests the underlying security imperative of a nationwide credential. We have invested too much simply to throw up our 

hands and walk away. We have to get it right. But we do not need 

an expensive, low-tech flash pass that provides little security. 

TWIC should be an inexpensive, high-tech security credential that 

contributes to port security. 

We need to set aside differences and work with the administration to finally transform the TWIC program into the type of comprehensive security shield we have long sought. And, to that end, 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Do other Members seek recognition? 

Ms. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Larsen, who is here instead of Mr. Rahall, for 

holding this very important hearing. 

One of my top priorities since being here in Congress has been 

to ensure that our country’s ability to move goods is second to none 

and that it is done in an efficient and safe manner. My district 

serves as a gateway to the country and is home to workers that 

serve in both the Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which are 

the largest ports in this country and where 40 percent of the Nation’s goods travel through. 

Recently, this program—and I guess not so recent; it has been 

over a period of time, as Mr. Larsen said—but the concerns have 

been heightened into issues of intrusiveness of the process, of the 

TWIC process; the financial burden that it is unnecessarily placing 

on the workers; and then, also, what is being done with the information obtained by the TWIC readers. Is that remained exclusively 

by the Government or shared with companies, as well? 

My sister, I won’t say which particular company that she works 

for, but I found it interesting that the TWIC cards expand not only 

4 

to the dock workers who are on site but to all of those who are involved in a chain of transportation of goods. 

There is really no reason why TWIC readers have not been instituted at this point. I had an opportunity to travel on a CODEL, a 

Homeland Security CODEL, out of this country, and they had literally the keypads that were where biometrics could be used of fingerprints. And this was well over about 21⁄2 years ago. So why in 

this country of great technology we have not managed—and that 

was actually an American company; I looked at the device to see 

the name of who produced it—why we still can’t get to the point 

that we fulfill the promise that we made to the American people 

of this investment is disappointing. 

Finally, the TWIC card report has found—speaking now off of 

the readers themselves, but the cardstock is not adequate. The 

readers are not ready to be deployable. And now we have issues of 

renewals coming up, where people had to go and apply, then go in 

person and pick it up, spend all sorts of money for nothing more 

than a flash card, which is not appropriate for the security that we 

need in this country. 

I look forward to the testimony. And I would urge those who are 

on behalf of the appropriate agencies that it is imperative that the 

workers are involved in the process of how we do further implementations forward, whether that is extensions, whether that is deploying of devices, and certainly when we are talking about the use 

of private information. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this meeting. 

And it just befuddles me why we go through all this—why we 

have all these problems for a card. Having worked—well, I represent the ports in New Jersey, the Port of Newark and the Port 

of Elizabeth, and people are always constantly asking me, are they 

secure? 

But, you know, with this card, I remember working on the New 

Jersey license years ago when it was a sham, what we had in New 

Jersey, and finally coming through with a card that—it was an example for the rest of the country. I don’t understand why so long, 

so much money it takes for us to get a TWIC card. And I guess 

that is just my comment. It just befuddles me. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

If no other Members seek recognition, then we will turn to our 

panel of witnesses. 

And the first panel is: Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, and he is 

assistant commandant for prevention policy in the U.S. Coast 

Guard. Then we have Ms. Kelli Ann Walther, and she is acting 

deputy assistant secretary, Screening Coordination Office, Office of 

Policy at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Also, missing—and I will make a note for the record, and, again, 

I am going to consult with the Democratic leadership on a possible 

subpoena of this witness who did not appear. Mr. Stephen Sadler, 

5 

assistant administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, failed to appear at today’s hearing, June 28, 2012. 

With that, I will turn first for opening statements to the acting 

deputy assistant secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Walther. 

Welcome, and you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF KELLI ANN WALTHER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, SCREENING COORDINATION OFFICE, 

OFFICE OF POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND REAR ADMIRAL JOSEPH SERVIDIO, ASSISTANT 

COMMANDANT FOR PREVENTION POLICY, U.S. COAST 

GUARD 

Ms. WALTHER. Thank you, Chairman Mica and distinguished 

members of the committee. The Department of Homeland Security 

appreciates the opportunity to appear before the committee to highlight our work on the TWIC program. My testimony will address 

the role of TWIC as one element of DHS’s layered approach to maritime security and our plans for the program’s future. 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for maritime security. The 

maritime environment is complex with many variables. Our approach to maritime security is also complex, with multiple layers 

in place to mitigate threats. 

As authorized by Congress, the mission of the TWIC program is 

to enable maritime vessel and facility operators to make informed 

access control decisions for workers seeking unescorted access to 

secure areas. The program provides the facility or vessel owner and 

operator with both a means of verifying the worker’s identity and 

evidence that TSA has conducted a robust security threat assessment on the individual presenting a TWIC. 

TWIC is a public/private-sector relationship. In most cases, the 

Federal Government does not own or operate the critical infrastructure and key resources in the maritime domain. Therefore, we work 

closely with our partners to meet Homeland Security objectives in 

a manner consistent with our operational needs. 

DHS conducts the checks and issues the credentials, while facilities and vessels decide who can access their secure areas. With 

TWIC, port security officers across the country encounter a single 

recognizable, tamper-resistant credential rather than hundreds of 

different identity cards. DHS also partners with the private sector 

by participating in regular meetings with a TWIC Stakeholder 

Communication Committee, speaking at conferences, and visiting 

MTSA regulated sites to see the TWIC program in operation. 

TSA began the national deployment of the TWIC program in October 2007. Almost 5 years later, DHS has issued over 2 million 

TWICs to longshoremen, truckers, merchant mariners, and rail and 

vessel crewmembers, utilizing 135 enrollment sites nationwide. 

Never before has the Federal Government attempted to conduct security threat assessments and issue a secure credential on this 

scale with such a geographically dispersed population of privatesector workers. 

From 2008 to 2011, TSA conducted a TWIC reader pilot to inform and support the development of a TWIC reader rule. TSA 

evaluated the technical performance of the TWIC biometric reader 

6 

function at 17 locations across the United States. TSA was able to 

collect information on reader performance as well as assess the 

operational and business impacts under diverse field conditions. A 

final report on the results of this pilot was delivered to Congress 

in February 2012. 

The TWIC program achieves its mission by conducting uniform 

vetting on maritime workers and issuing a tamper-resistant biometric credential to successful applicants. The actual TWIC cards 

contain security features not available on standard ID badges, 

which makes them highly resistant to counterfeiting. The vetting 

TSA conducts includes checks for ties for terrorism using the terrorist watch list, an immigration status check, and a criminal history records check. 

On August 30th of this year, TSA will offer eligible TWIC holders 

the opportunity to replace their expiring 5-year TWICs with a 3- 

year extended-expiration-date card. TSA is offering this option at 

$60 to make it more cost-effective for eligible workers while the 

TWIC reader rule is pending. Upon expiration of the 3-year card, 

all TWIC holders will be required to enroll for a standard 5-year 

TWIC. 

The implementation of TWIC has provided significant improvements to security in the maritime environment. Before TWIC, no 

standard identity verification or background checks were conducted 

on individuals prior to entering secure areas of our Nation’s port 

facilities and vessels. Owners and operators had to rely on multiple 

types of identity documents with wide variations in their security 

and issuance processes. Today, facility owners and vessel owners 

and operators can rely on a standardized credential that confirms 

the holder’s identity and shows evidence that he or she successfully 

completed a security threat assessment. 

DHS and its partners have taken significant steps to add layers 

of security to protect our Nation’s ports. These steps link together 

information sharing, security, and law enforcement from across 

DHS and a multitude of partnerships. Each layer builds upon and 

complements the others. TWIC is one of those layers. 

Thank you for this opportunity to update the committee on this 

important program. I have submitted written testimony and respectfully request that it be made part of the hearing record. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. MICA. I will withhold questions until we have heard from our 

other witness. 

We will now recognize Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio and welcome him. 

You are recognized. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking 

Member Larsen, distinguished members of this committee, I am 

Rear Admiral Joe Servidio, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 

Policy for the United States Coast Guard. I am honored to have 

this opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the 

Coast Guard’s role in enforcing compliance of the Transportation 

Worker Identification Credential within the maritime transportation system and to update you on our ongoing efforts related to 

the program. 

7 

The TWIC program provides a standardized baseline for the determination of an individual’s suitability to enter the secure area 

of a Maritime Transportation Safety Act-regulated vessel or facility. It is only the first half of a two-part process. In addition to possessing a valid TWIC, an individual must be specifically granted 

access to the secure area by each individual vessel or facility security officer. 

To clarify, the possession of a valid TWIC alone is not sufficient 

to gain the holder of that credential access to the secure areas on 

vessels or facilities. The TWIC provides a means by which a vessel 

or facility security officer can determine that an individual has 

been vetted to an established and accepted standard using a single 

uniform, tamper-resistant credential that security personnel have 

been trained to examine. It helps inform the security officer’s decision to grant unescorted access to an individual. 

To clarify agency roles regarding the TWIC program, TSA is responsible—the Transportation Security Administration—for TWIC 

enrollment, security threat assessment, adjudication, card production, technology, TWIC issuance, conduct of the TWIC appeals and 

waiver processes, and management of Government support systems. The Coast Guard is responsible for establishing and enforcing access control requirements at MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities, which include the requirements for TWICs at approximately 2,700 regulated facilities, 12,000 regulated vessels, and 50 

regulated Outer Continental Shelf facilities. 

The SAFE Port Act mandates that the Coast Guard conduct two 

security inspections annually at MTSA-regulated facilities, with 

one inspection being unannounced. During each of these exams, 

TWICs are checked by Coast Guard personnel either visually or by 

using biometric hand-held readers. Vessels and facilities within all 

42 Captain of the Port zones are in compliance with TWIC requirements and have been since April 15, 2009. 

To maximize the security benefits of the TWIC and supplemental 

enforcement efforts, the Coast Guard has deployed 275 biometric 

hand-held readers to our field units, and we verified over 230,000 

TWICs during our inspections. 

The Coast Guard is developing regulations to require the use of 

readers to verify TWICs at certain MTSA-regulated facilities and 

vessels. Card readers are viewed as a key step in maximizing security, and we are moving forward as smartly and quickly as possible 

with the TWIC reader requirements notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The proposed rulemaking established risk-based requirements for 

the enhancement of access control through the use of TWIC readers 

without unnecessarily impeding commerce or port operations. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking is of the highest priority to the Coast 

Guard and DHS and has the personal attention of the Secretary 

and is in final clearance. 

The Coast Guard continues to work diligently to execute our 

TWIC program responsibility: establishing and enforcing access 

control requirements at MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities. We 

continue to work closely with our partners—our partners in DHS 

and State and local agencies and law enforcement and in the maritime industry—to enhance the TWIC program in a manner that 

8 

improves port security while facilitating commerce to the maximum 

extent possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and for your 

continued support of the Coast Guard. I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

And we will start right in with some questions. 

First of all, let me go to some of your testimony. You just testified that you are still finalizing the standards for the readers? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Yes, Chairman. We are working as quickly as 

we can—— 

Mr. MICA. What is the holdup with it? I mean, first of all, you 

testified you issued 275 readers that are out there now; is that 

right? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Yes, Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. So we have issued those, and we don’t have standards 

for them fully adopted. Is that also correct? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We do have the capability of using them and 

checking the biometrics on them—— 

Mr. MICA. We have readers out there, yet we have not finished 

adopting the standards that are acceptable; is that correct? Has to 

be. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And what timeframe, for the record, would you 

estimate that we would have those standards adopted? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Well, sir, I can’t testify with regards to the 

standards for the reader. I can talk about the reader—— 

Mr. MICA. You just said in your testimony that you would have 

standards for the reader shortly or something? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We are going through the notice of proposed 

rulemaking process, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK. When—what is that? I mean, let’s do the rulemaking or whatever. How long will it take? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We are in final clearance, sir. We are informed by the results—— 

Mr. MICA. You have been in final clearance for years. If this was 

a plane, we would have run out of fuel and crashed and burned. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. I share your concerns, sir. The—— 

Mr. MICA. OK. For the record, what I am trying to get is some 

timeframe. Six months, three months, two months, a year? How 

long before we actually have a standard and complete the rulemaking and all the other requirements to have a standard for these 

readers? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Chairman, the regulatory process requires 

that we solicit comments, and it is—— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. I know the process, but I am just saying, give for 

the record a period of time, because what I am going to do is haul 

you in here again at the end of that period and ask you. So give 

me some time definition. Six months? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. The Secretary has said that it should be completed by the end of the calendar year. I believe our Commandant 

has said that it would be done by the summer, sir. We are working 

as quickly as we can—— 

9 

[Insert for the record from the United States Coast Guard follows:] 

The Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, testified on March 6, 2012, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security that 

‘‘. . . we’re working through the final rule (TWIC Reader 

Rule). And that process should take about a year to get 

that completed.’’ 

Mr. MICA. So the Secretary said by the end of the year, and the 

Commandant said by the end of the summer? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. We are working as quickly as possible, and it 

has the Secretary’s personal attention, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Is that Napolitano? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Well, my role is trying to nail this thing down, see 

when we are going to have readers. 

Now, the card itself—we have had a series of hearings, and the 

card was supposed to have both thumb and iris capability. And in 

one of our last hearings over a year ago, we had in the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, and they had told me that 

it would be that fall that they would have the standards for iris. 

That was over a year ago. Then we asked again in the fall, and 

they said it would be the beginning of the year—that would be this 

year, 2012—that we would have the iris standards. 

Ms. Walther, where are we with that? 

Ms. WALTHER. The Department continues to follow the work of 

both GSA and NIST on iris as a biometric. 

Mr. MICA. But that doesn’t answer my question. They promised 

us that, again, a year ago the fall, then the end of the year, then 

the beginning of the year it would be early this year. 

This is June. Where are we with the iris? Do you know? Have 

they given you, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have you agreed upon a standard for iris? 

Ms. WALTHER. Sir, I can’t answer on behalf of NIST as to where 

they are—— 

Mr. MICA. No, but you are to fulfill having a card. Now, aren’t 

we going to start issuing more cards? Were they a 5-year card, Admiral? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK, they were a 5-year card. So some of those cards 

are starting to expire—how soon are they expiring? October? A couple of months. 

So we will start issuing more cards again, won’t we, Admiral? 

What are we going to do? Give them an extension? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. I think Kelli Ann is probably better to—— 

Mr. MICA. OK, Assistant Secretary, are we going to start reissuing cards in October? 

Ms. WALTHER. Yes, sir—— 

Mr. MICA. We have to do something. We have expiring cards, 

right? 

Ms. WALTHER. Yes, sir. The card—— 

Mr. MICA. And we don’t have an iris standard; is that right? 

10 

Ms. WALTHER. That is correct—— 

Mr. MICA. And we don’t have reader standards set—— 

Ms. WALTHER [continuing]. We do utilize fingerprints. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Is that right? Yes? 

Ms. WALTHER. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Can you see how frustrating this is? And it goes on 

and on and on. In many instances, the private sector has done this. 

In some other agencies they have actually completed and have IDs 

that work. 

Now, so at our ports we have issued a card—and there are 275 

readers out there. Is that the readers total? Do we know how many 

ports they are at, Admiral? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, as of May of 2012, our field inspectors 

have said there is approximately 75 to 100 different port facilities 

that have implemented readers and have procured them on their 

own. But the Coast Guard—— 

Mr. MICA. So how many of the total ports would that be? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. There is—well, there is 2,700—— 

Mr. MICA. Ports? 

Admiral SERVIDIO [continuing]. Facilities, sir. 

Mr. MICA. And we have gotten how many? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. I was told between 75 and 100—— 

Mr. MICA. Oh, we are really moving down the lane in expedited 

fashion. 

It would seem that this is a spotty deployment and a totally inadequate adoption of standards. And now we are going to start the 

second phase of issuing cards for which we don’t have a reader, we 

don’t have the standards—do we have a deployment schedule? 

When would we hope to have, Assistant Secretary, these fully deployed and operating, the TWIC cards and readers? Do you have 

a plan for that? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. I can take that question, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK, we will go back to the Coast Guard. 

Admiral SERVIDIO. Sir, I share your concern with the delays in 

this. We need to get this rulemaking right. We needed to take the 

lessons learned from the pilot program, and we also need to include 

the comments that were provided in the advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, along with the economic concerns for this risk-based 

system that we are looking to incorporate in the final rule are 

there, sir. We need to make sure we are doing it right. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, we are going on 9 years. We are in our 

second phase of issuing cards. You can get something out of a 

Cracker Jack box and probably take it to the port and get in, too. 

We had GAO test what is out there. They found it is very easy to 

subvert what has been issued, since we don’t have a reader, we 

don’t have a full biometric capability in the card. When is the last 

time you contacted the folks over at National Institute of Standards and Technology to see when they would be ready? 

Ms. WALTHER. I can get back to you with that answer. 

Mr. MICA. You don’t know? 

Ms. WALTHER. I don’t have that with me, no. 

Mr. MICA. Who in your department would deal with actually contacting and dealing with them? Is there a name? 

Ms. WALTHER. TSA has been—— 

11 

Mr. MICA. TSA? 

Ms. WALTHER [continuing]. Dealing with them. 

Mr. MICA. So TSA is responsible for that? And they won’t show 

up, they will not show up at a hearing here. They refuse to come 

and answer us. They are the ones responsible. You are testifying 

under oath that they are responsible for that particular element of 

getting a TWIC card and its capability, biometric capability, and 

they will not show up. Is that what you are telling me? 

Ms. WALTHER. TSA is responsible—— 

Mr. MICA. Did the Secretary tell them not to come? 

Ms. WALTHER. Sir, the test program—— 

Mr. MICA. Do you have the ability to ask them to come? 

Ms. WALTHER. I believe the Department has reached out to the 

committee staff on this matter. And I hear your concerns, and I can 

take that back, as well. 

Mr. MICA. You know, I am fed up with this, really, Mr. Larsen. 

This hearing is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MICA. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will 

come back to order. 

We chose to recess both because of my frustration with the Department of Homeland Security and TSA and their inability to respond to the committee. I had an opportunity to consult briefly 

with the ranking member, and we are going to take the matter 

under advisement and talk to Mr. Rahall, Mr. LoBiondo, and others, see how we proceed with both TSA and Homeland Security. 

In order to be fair and give both sides of the aisle the opportunity 

to question these witnesses, I will yield now to the ranking member, Mr. Larsen. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, share your frustration with the lack of TSA’s presence and, some might say, ability to be forthright with this committee in order to have us do an 

appropriate job of oversight on the TWIC program. So we will be 

talking with Mr. Rahall, be sure he is aware of the situation, and 

try to—we will work expeditiously with the majority side to address that concern. 

For Ms. Walther, in my opening statement, I said that we do not 

need an expensive, low-tech flash pass that provides little security. 

We need an inexpensive, high-tech security credential that contributes to port security. 

I am going to ask you the question, what you think we are closer 

to with regards to the TWIC. And the reason I am going to ask 

that is because I will ask that of the second panel, as well, to see 

if we get an answer that is close or the same or very different. 

So what would you say the TWIC more equates to: an expensive, 

low-tech flash pass that provides little security or an inexpensive, 

high-tech security credential that contributes to port security? 

Ms. WALTHER. Sir, the TWIC provides a tamper-resistant credential that is issued to all individuals that need access to secure 

areas of MTSA-related facilities and vessels. Previously, each port 

facility owner-operator issued unique identity cards. Now the 

TWIC makes an easily recognizable credential that is recognizable 

across the country, east coast or west coast. It also ensures eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:00 Sep 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\6-28-1~1\75376.TXT JEAN
12 

dence of a security threat assessment on a vetted population that 

did not exist before. 

I believe in the AAPA’s submitted written testimony; they also 

acknowledge the difference of before TWIC and after TWIC, where 

before TWIC there were unmanned gates and not access control at 

every access point, and today TWIC provides a value that you 

know when you see a TWIC that you are seeing evidence of a security threat assessment. And it can be used across the country while 

facilities and owners and operators maintain the ability to make 

those actual access decisions. 

Mr. LARSEN. As much as I support this new policy that you have 

to extend the expiration date, if it is possible to extend that expiration date of a TWIC and only require an applicant to visit an enrollment center once, why does it take two visits to an enrollment 

center for the issuance of a new TWIC or a renewal of an existing 

TWIC card? 

Ms. WALTHER. The extended-expiration-date card is a one-time 

temporary extension. Knowing that the readers will not be in place 

at the time TWIC cards begin to expire this coming October, we 

wanted to provide that additional flexibility to the workers to reduce the cost and have one trip to the enrollment center. 

For new applicants, it is important to have those two trips. As 

GAO noted, that does follow best practices. At the enrollment, we 

capture the information. That information is used to conduct a full 

security threat assessment, have the adjudication. If the applicant 

passes those checks, they are issued and a card is activated. 

At that second trip to the enrollment center is where we do a biometric verification of the card to the card holder to ensure we are 

issuing that card to the rightful owner prior to them going out and 

back to work. 

Mr. LARSEN. So there are more than 2 million transportation 

workers enrolled in the TWIC program. Do you have an estimate 

of how many TWIC enrollees, well, TSA expects to have participate 

in the extended-expiration-date program? 

Ms. WALTHER. We estimate 1.3 million workers will be eligible 

to apply for the extended-expiration-date card. 

Mr. LARSEN. Do you have any data to indicate whether or not 

those who are eligible both will apply and be approved? Is this 

going to be a fairly perfunctory activity? 

Ms. WALTHER. Applying for the EED is not a requirement, so I 

can’t answer whether they will apply for a 3-year card or a 5-year 

card. That is still an option, and that would be up to that individual. 

Mr. LARSEN. And the process of approval, from your perspective, 

is that going to be fairly routine? 

Ms. WALTHER. It will be standardized across all EED applicants, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Admiral, I understand that—well, Section 809 of 

the Coast Guard Authorization Act exempts mariners who do not 

need access to a secure area of a vessel from the requirements that 

they obtain a TWIC, and the Coast Guard Policy Letter 11–15 implements that section, but still requires those seeking their first 

mariner credential to visit a TWIC enrollment center essentially to 

complete the TWIC enrollment process and pay the enrollment fee. 

13 

So I understand the TWIC exemption has been estimated by the 

Coast Guard to apply to potentially 60,000 of 220,000 licensed 

mariners in the U.S. Is that correct? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. I believe so, Ranking Member. 

Mr. LARSEN. So, given the policy letter and the impact on folks 

who fulfill the exemption requirements and yet go through the entire TWIC process, are there steps being taken by the Coast Guard 

to reduce fees for mariners who do not need TWICs but yet are basically going through this same process? 

Admiral SERVIDIO. There is going to be a rulemaking project, sir, 

to reduce those fees. 

What we did as a result of 809 is, via policy, implemented what 

we could with respect to renewals. About 230 people thus far have 

been issued merchant mariners credentials without having a valid 

TWIC. But we believe we have to go through a rulemaking process 

in order to reexamine those fees. 

As part of our merchant mariners credential program, what we 

have done is we have utilized TSA’s enrollment sites to collect the 

biometrics and, again, to do the threat assessment part of it. Our 

actual examination of a merchant mariner to look at their character and their habits of life is a separate part. But we have looked 

to make it as most effective as possible—a single enrollment, single 

collection of biometrics—for doing that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that is going to be fine for me. I will have 

other questions for the record for the witnesses. 

Mr. MICA. We will have other questions. We will leave the record 

open for—I think we will leave it open for 30 days if that is OK. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. 

Mr. MICA. Because I would like to have additional questions submitted to these witnesses. 

As you can tell, I am not very pleased with who they sent today 

from Homeland Security and the lack of preparedness to provide 

information to this committee and the ignoring of the committee by 

TSA, which I think we deserve a response from, questions, and full 

participation, and we will deal with that. 

I am going to excuse these witnesses. I just am very frustrated 

at this point. And we will consult with our colleagues and see how 

we proceed with the Department of Homeland Security. 

TSA, you are excused. 

Let’s bring the second panel of witnesses up. We have Mr. Joseph 

Lawless, director of maritime security, Massachusetts Port Authority. He is testifying on behalf of the American Association of Port 

Authorities. We have Mr. Lindsay McLaughlin, legislative director 

of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. 

I am pleased to welcome both of the witnesses, and you will be 

recognized for 5 minutes. If you would like to provide additional 

testimony to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, you 

are welcome to do so, just by submission. 

So we will proceed with these two witnesses, and I will recognize 

first Mr. Joseph Lawless from the Massachusetts Port Authority, 

testifying for the American Association of Port Authorities. 

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

14 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH LAWLESS, DIRECTOR OF MARITIME 

SECURITY, MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF 

OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES 

(AAPA); AND LINDSAY MCLAUGHLIN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE 

UNION 

Mr. LAWLESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members 

of the committee. Good morning. My name is Joseph Lawless. I am 

the director of maritime security at the Massachusetts Port Authority. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the American Association of 

Port Authorities, where I serve as chairman of the AAPA Security 

Committee. My testimony today is on behalf of AAPA’s 81 U.S. port 

members. All AAPA U.S. maritime port facilities are impacted by 

the TWIC requirements. 

Five years ago, TSA rolled out the requirement that individuals 

who need unescorted access to Maritime Transportation Security 

Act-regulated port facilities must obtain a TWIC card. Those original TWICs are expiring, and today TSA has a new contractor to 

handle the issuance of TWICs. With the new contractor involved, 

we urge this committee to keep a close eye on the TWIC process. 

TSA should work closely with the stakeholders in the maritime environment to educate the workforce of these renewal deadlines and 

requirements. 

We are pleased to see that the House Homeland Security Committee approved H.R. 4251, the SMART Port Security Act, which 

includes necessary and immediate reforms to the TWIC program. 

The Act provides that not more than one in-person visit to the enrollment center will be necessary to obtain a TWIC. And expiration 

of TWIC cards shall not occur until full implementation of a final 

rule for electronic readers, or on June 30, 2014. 

We are also pleased to see that the TSA has taken action to address TWICs expiring before the end of 2014. U.S. citizens who 

have a TWIC that expires before the end of 2014 will have the option of paying $60 to acquire a 3-year extended-expiration card. 

While we support these efforts to make the process more efficient, 

our member ports are concerned that there will not be a new threat 

assessment conducted for the extended-expiration cards, and we 

feel this lack of an additional criminal background check could dilute the security of our facilities. 

TWIC mandates have changed the way port facilities are run. In 

addition to the cost of the card, port facilities must now ensure that 

all gate and entrance points have a way to check TWICs. Massport 

staffs all of its access points into our facilities with security personnel to verify that the entrants have a TWIC. 

Though the TWIC card includes a biometric security feature, due 

to the delay in the issuance of the final rule, it has not been put 

into use at most facilities. Therefore, the security features of the 

card are not being utilized and the TWIC is currently being used 

as a flash pass. Without these readers, there is no way to automatically check a hot list of revoked or suspended TWICs. 

The next phase of TWIC is the reader rule, which has already 

been delayed for a length of time. The delay in the reader rule has 

had a large impact on the Port Security Grants Program. Congress 

15 

appropriated $400 million, recognizing the need for Federal funds 

to help pay for the reader mandate. In order for grantees to begin 

purchasing readers, TSA published technical specifications for 

TWIC readers in order for the grantees to begin to buy these readers. While this is much appreciated, these specifications will likely 

change in response to the final rule. Therefore, those ports are 

going to be using their grants in installing systems that may require costly changes once the final rule is issued. Until the final 

reader rule is issued, it is not known if all facilities will be required 

to have readers. 

Finally, AAPA supports congressional proposals to extend the 5- 

year deadline for when the TWIC grants must be spent in order to 

allow these funds to be based on the final rule. AAPA is also concerned that the delay in the reader rule comes at a time when port 

security grant funding is decreasing and the burden of the reader 

rule will fall on port facilities. While the programs saw a high of 

$400 million, its fiscal year 2012 level is $97.5 million. What funding will be available when the rule goes into effect? 

In conclusion, AAPA and its members have worked closely with 

the TSA and the Coast Guard on implementation of the TWIC requirements. For facilities, the next phase, the reader rule, will be 

the most expensive. We encourage the Coast Guard to continue 

their proposed rulemaking process so ports can take advantage of 

the funds provided for reader implementation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. I will withhold questions until we have heard from 

Mr. Lindsay McLaughlin. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you, Chairman Mica—— 

Mr. MICA. Welcome. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN [continuing]. And Ranking Member Larsen. My 

name is Lindsay McLaughlin. I am here on behalf of our president, 

Bob McEllrath, and the 65,000 members of our union. We represent longshore warehouse workers, maritime workers on the west 

coast—Alaska, Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon, California. 

It is interesting you asked in your invitation to us to respond to 

the question as to whether TWIC significantly enhances the security of U.S. ports or whether the costs the TWIC program imposes 

on U.S. port workers could be better spent on other port security 

initiatives. And I think at our—we had a meeting of longshoremen 

from up and down the coast a couple weeks ago, and there was a 

resolution that came out of Seattle, Washington, local, and it said 

we wanted to repeal the TWIC. And so let me just try to make the 

case as to why TWIC is insignificant in terms of security and poses 

other problems. 

As you know, the MTSA requires that all people that have access 

to secure areas of a port to go through the threat assessment and 

get a TWIC. However, we believe at its core—and you talk to individual longshoremen that just move one box from point A to point 

B, and they don’t know what is in the box. They have no clue what 

is in the box. They move the box. They say, I mean, what are they 

worried about? What opportunity do I have to create acts of terrorism? Why should I get a criminal background check? 

And in a port area, I mean, if somebody fails the criminal background check—I mean, most ports, I mean, everything is a secure 

16 

area. So that person, if for whatever reason they fail the threat assessment, they won’t have a job. But, I mean, these containers are 

locked, they are sealed. And, from our perspective, I mean, the only 

argument that you could make for a criminal background check for 

an individual is an individual who knows what is in the can. But 

most don’t. So they don’t know whether it is tennis shoes or some 

kind of material that could be used for terrorism. 

Also, we are not really convinced that the TWIC readers will 

properly function in the maritime environment and increase security. We say that because the GAO report on the TWIC pilot program in February 2012 concluded that, quote, ‘‘readers capable of 

passing all environmental tests would represent a serious business 

challenge to manufacture in terms of cost per unit.’’ Further, a high 

number of cards malfunctioned electronically. There were problems 

with the cardstock itself, I mean, with the fading, peeling, staining 

that made it difficult to be read by the readers. 

And participants in the pilot program, many of them, said that 

they would get rid of the guards or the clerks that were checking 

the credentials as people come in, which to us is—you know, these 

are the people that know you by name, you know, that could tell 

if you don’t belong. I mean, that just doesn’t seem to be a good 

idea, to get rid of these people that are watching you as you come 

into your workplace. I mean, you went over the cost, the $3.2 billion over 10 years. 

I think that is very expensive. 

One of the things that I have worked on the most in terms of 

port security is to try to get Members of Congress and others to 

recognize the civil-liberties aspect of port security. Our way of 

thinking is that, if a person has served time in prison, that does 

not necessarily make that person a terrorist security risk. They 

have committed a crime. Denying work opportunities for workers 

doesn’t make sense in terms of concluding, because there is a past, 

that they must be a terrorist security risk. But it is bad public policy to put people out of work. 

Perhaps more disturbing, thousands of workers who do not have 

a felony conviction at all are denied work opportunities as a result 

of the TWIC program until they prove their lack of conviction. Unfortunately, the ILW has numerous members who face just these 

circumstances because of TWIC. And, Congressman Larsen, I included two examples of people from Seattle that did nothing wrong. 

One had a pending case that was never prosecuted because there 

was nothing there, and yet when he applied for his TWIC, it took 

him 6 months to get it, and he exhausted his savings. Another example from a longshoreman from Seattle. He was born on a military base, as I was, and he didn’t have records of his birth certificate. So he had to work through the military to get that, and it 

took him 6 months to get that. And his house—you know, he was 

close to losing his house. So he exhausted his savings. So these are 

unfair—this is a very unfair aspect of the TWIC program. 

And since implementation of the TWIC program, close to 50,000 

workers have filed for appeals after initial determination that they 

were ineligible to receive a TWIC. An appeal, as you know, is different from a waiver in that an individual who receives this determination was probably never convicted of a felony, but they must 

17 

prove that he or she was not convicted by obtaining court and police records and sending them to TSA for their review. That is because the database that they use, the FBI database, many times 

it doesn’t show—it shows that a person was arrested for a particular offense. And if TSA doesn’t follow up, it doesn’t follow up— 

I mean, this is the final resolution. The person was charged with 

something, they may never have been convicted, they may have 

been convicted of a lesser offense, and it is not followed up on. 

Congressman Bobby Scott from Virginia had legislation last Congress that would mandate that the FBI look for the final resolution 

of the charge to see whether they were convicted before sending it 

to TSA so that individuals won’t get these letters saying that they 

are, you know, denied a TWIC. And I think that is fair. 

So this is a huge problem because a lot of—I mean, I got calls 

from longshoremen and they said, well, I was convicted of X in 

year, and I served this amount of in prison; it is all over for me, 

isn’t it? And, you know, they have a union that they can go to to 

say, no, most of these waivers and appeals, they are—I mean, you 

should be OK, but you have to prove that you have been rehabilitated. But others that don’t have a union to go to, I mean, onequarter of these letters that went out saying you may not be eligible, they didn’t even respond. And that is a problem, because I 

think people are out of their jobs when they could have saved their 

job had they known the information. 

There is a problem here in that we found from the National Employment Law Project that there were serious racial disparities in 

processing of TWIC applications. On average, white applicants 

were approved for their TWIC within 6 months; African Americans, 

7 months; and Latinos, 8 months. We find that disturbing. The National Employment Law Project speculated that these delays may 

have been associated with the lack of targeted outreach and education of these communities in the absence of translation and interpreter services. We do think the availability of waivers—am I out 

of time, or am I OK? 

Mr. MICA. You can go on a little bit. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. OK. 

OK—waivers are essential. 

There are alternatives. We think Congress is throwing money 

away on a wasteful program, and we think the wasteful program 

is the TWIC. 

We also—you know, there is some bitterness about how the port 

security grants have been—some of the port security grants for surveillance equipment that is actually monitoring workers and not 

looking for terrorists. That is a problem, that workers have been 

disciplined because of the taxpayer-funded cameras that are going 

to these ports. And I have another example here. 

We think that there must be alternative programs and flexibility 

built into the TWIC program that would allow a more localized approach. We think that if our union and our employer could work 

out a system with Federal guidelines for access control, I think we 

would prefer to do that. TWIC is just too cumbersome, there are 

too many people involved, and workers fall through the cracks, and 

we want to make sure that our workers do not. 

18 

So, finally, again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I 

will try to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Thank you, particularly, Mr. McLaughlin. I share some of the 

commentary and testimony perspective that you have provided the 

committee and view this as a wasteful program, not that effective. 

I am a little bit disappointed that I didn’t hear more of that from 

the association of ports. Are you pleased, Mr. Lawless? Are the 

ports pleased with the progress of this program? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Mr. Chairman, no, we are not pleased. We have 

been waiting for this final rule to come out on the TWIC implementation for the reader rule. We have port security funds that have 

been sitting idle while we await that rule to come out. So, no, we 

are not pleased. 

Mr. MICA. And how about on the deployment side? They testified 

that a small fraction of the ports are covered. We have readers 

which have not actually been approved as far as standards. Is that 

acceptable? 

Mr. LAWLESS. No, that is not acceptable. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And now we are about to re-up issuance of these 

cards. This has gone on for 9 years. We have actually had cards 

out there for almost 5 years. Do you see a problem there? 

Mr. LAWLESS. I do see a problem. It is being used as a flash pass, 

a low-tech security item. 

Mr. MICA. They probably could have done it at a fraction of the 

cost and far less hassle, wouldn’t you both agree, if you are just 

going to do a flash pass? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes, if you are going to do a flash pass, it would 

be much less. 

Mr. MICA. What is disappointing, one of my investigative team 

showed me that DOD already developed a card that has biometric, 

it has iris, thumb, it even has palm—very secure. I will submit a 

little information about it. 

Joint Personnel Identification Version 2, it is JPIv2. This is already in use, approved, meets all the criteria that we are looking 

for. And we are in reinventing the wheel. Well, we aren’t reinventing the wheel because we haven’t done what we need to do in 

developing anything that meets this standard. It has already been 

done. 

And we can’t even get TSA to come in here. You saw the fiasco 

in the panel before us. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Doesn’t that just destroy your faith in this process? 

And it is appalling that TSA would thumb their nose at the committee, that they would send a witness who is so unprepared, and 

then to have the nerve to sit there and say, ‘‘Well, TSA has the answer to that,’’ but they won’t show them up. And TSA is under that 

agency, Homeland Security. You know, I just slammed this down 

in frustration. 

And it is just appalling. And it goes on and on, spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, which, Mr. McLaughlin, you 

described very well, and we don’t have, again, a secure program in 

place. That is such a disappointment. 

Mr. Larsen? 

19 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Lawless, I read in your statement that your organization is pleased with the recent announcement concerning 

TSA’s extended enrollment date policy. But can you explain why 

ports are concerned that there will be no additional criminal background checks completed for the EED? How serious of a security 

threat do you think this is, that they need a new and additional 

criminal background check? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Mr. Larsen, I think in the period of 8 years there 

is a possibility that a person who has a TWIC could be involved 

in criminal activity that would therefore disqualify them. And if 

they are not checking that background and extending the card for 

3 years, to me and to my fellow port members, that is a concern. 

Mr. LARSEN. With regards to the estimates the AAPA has for 

how much it will cost the ports to install TWIC card readers, has 

there been a fully developed estimate for the cost? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Not a fully developed estimate, no, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. An estimated estimate? 

Mr. LAWLESS. I don’t have that information with me, sir, but I 

can provide it to you, if you would like, to the committee. 

Mr. LARSEN. Could you do that for the record, please? It would 

be very helpful. 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75376.006
21 

Mr. LARSEN. To that point—and I am very, very sympathetic to 

the point that you have about port security grants, having them, 

not being able to use them. But I think it is reasonable to ask Congress to know what the expense might be before looking at the Port 

Security Grant Program. So the sooner, the better on that. 

In addition, the port security grants that ports have received for 

readers, is there any flexibility in those dollars, or are these largely 

grants that are supposed to be used for readers only? 

Mr. LAWLESS. The grant program, you specify how you are going 

to use those funds when you make an application. So you would 

specify you are planning to implement a TWIC reader. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Mr. LAWLESS. And if the reader specs aren’t complete, then—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Mr. LAWLESS [continuing]. It doesn’t make sense to spend that 

money. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. OK. 

Once the Coast Guard completes it rulemaking, how confident 

are you that the TWIC readers that ports purchase and install will 

be reliable and durable? We have heard testimony from Mr. 

McLaughlin about concerns about the actual durability not just of 

the reader but of the card itself. 

Mr. LAWLESS. I have faith in the Coast Guard that they are 

going to look at the durability issues. And that is part of the rulemaking when they issue those final specifications. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, we will certainly be exploring that faith. Nothing against the Coast Guard, but durability of the readers and the 

cards has been an issue in the pilot, and that is going to have to 

be addressed. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Congressman Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah, Mr. McLaughlin. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Right now, I mean, if a card is not working 

with the reader because it is faded or peeling, they blame the worker and they say, you have to get a replacement. So, right now, if 

a person’s card is damaged somehow, you know, faded or it is just 

not working well, they say, you have to pay for the replacement; 

you did something. 

So, I mean, my point is that they don’t even have the durability 

of the card right, because we can’t—I mean, that is not fair. 

Mr. LARSEN. And then the cost sits on you. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Pardon me? 

Mr. LARSEN. And then the cost sits on you, the worker. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yeah. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. LARSEN. In your statement, Mr. McLaughlin, you expressed 

concern with the TWIC appeals process, about its timeliness and 

efficiency. Do your concerns focus more on appeals that were filed 

over the first couple of years after TSA started enrolling workers, 

or are these concerns about the appeals process as it exists today? 

Have there been any improvements in the appeals process? 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yeah, we passed a law that said you have 30 

days to process an application and 30 days for the appeal. So my 

concern is that, you know, when we have this stampede to, again, 

get these cards renewed, that the same problems will happen 

again. So that is my concern. 

22 

And my second concern is, I don’t want people getting letters 

saying they might not be eligible for TWIC when they haven’t done 

anything wrong, when the information, you know, is just spotty 

that they may have been arrested for a certain, you know, activity 

but they were never convicted. I don’t want—I mean, those people 

did nothing wrong, and yet they are waiting the 6 months, 7 

months, 8 months to get their card, while they exhaust their savings. That, I think, needs to be fixed. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. What specific actions, then, would be taken 

to fix those specific problems? 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, without legislation, we would ask the 

TSA to do due diligence in working with the FBI to find the final 

result of a particular arrest. Because if you are arrested for, you 

know, a drug crime, of possession with intent to distribute, then 

you are sent a letter saying you may not be eligible for a TWIC. 

But I think it is incumbent on them to do their homework to say, 

you know, OK, the final disposition was that this person was not 

convicted. It may have been a possession charge; it may have been 

dismissed. 

That work is not being done, so thousands of workers are getting 

these letters saying that you may not be eligible for a TWIC. I 

mean, like I said, those people without a union to educate them, 

or organization, I mean, thousands of people didn’t even, you know, 

didn’t even do their appeal or waiver. And I just wonder why there 

wasn’t more outreach to those people, because I worry that they 

lost their livelihoods. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. Well, I would be hopeful that somehow TSA 

was listening right now, but I am not convinced that is the case. 

With regards to your testimony on regional or local strategies, 

are you suggesting that the entire concept of a TWIC is flawed and 

should be scrapped? Or are you suggesting that the TWIC program 

can be changed, augmented, tailored for regional or local approaches? 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, the resolution that was passed by the 

longshoremen said we want it repealed. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. In the testimony, I offered a solution, that if 

a major employer like Pacific Maritime Association and the ILWU 

could work out with some Federal guidelines a way to have access 

control and to ensure that only people that need to be there are 

there, with the due process protections that we worked so hard for 

in Congress, then that is an option, some flexibility that would 

allow us to do that, and take some pressure off the TSA, with the 

millions of workers that they have to deal with today. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I asked these specific questions to kind of give us 

some further direction to look into. And it is a lot of food for 

thought, and I appreciate the opportunity to question the witnesses. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And, Mr. Larsen, again, we have got 

to convene a meeting with the leadership of the committee and 

take under advisement some action, I think, to bring TSA or the 

Department of Homeland Security, at least someone who can anVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:00 Sep 12, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\6-28-1~1\75376.TXT JEAN
23 

swer our questions, in. And I think it is incumbent on us to make 

this work if we are going to put such a program in place. 

We have heard the frustration of both labor and also our ports, 

the association that runs the ports throughout—and represents the 

ports throughout the Nation. What we have in place is not acceptable. The delays are just beyond comprehension. The inability to 

put this program together is startling. And then the cost to the taxpayers in financing this entire fiasco is just totally unacceptable— 

a $3.2 billion program which is rife with problems and does not secure our ports. 

So I am extremely frustrated by all this. I want to thank both 

of you for coming in, particularly Mr. Lawless from Massachusetts, 

and being with us today. We are going to leave the record open for 

30 days. We may have additional questions we will submit to you. 

But we appreciate your cooperation, your suggestions and recommendations as we move forward. If we don’t have TWIC or 

TWIC doesn’t work, we need to make certain we have something 

positive in place that does work and secures our ports and our 

country. 

So, with that, there being no further business at this time before 

the committee, I will thank our witnesses, excuse them, and I will 

call this meeting and hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to a conclusion. This adjourns the meeting. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

24 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75376.007
25 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75376.008
26 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75376.009
27 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75376.010
28 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75376.011
29 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75376.012
30 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75376.013
31 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75376.014
32 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75376.015
33 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75376.016
34 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75376.017
35 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75376.018
36 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75376.019
37 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75376.020
38 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75376.021
39 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75376.022
40 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75376.023
41 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75376.024