- NOMINATIONS TO THE AMTRAK REFORM BOARD, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Senate Hearing 109-1126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 109-1126

NOMINATIONS TO THE AMTRAK REFORM BOARD,
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD, AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JUNE 8, 2006

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-181 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on June 8, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 6
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 1

Witnesses

Biden, R. Hunter, Nominee to be a Member of the Amtrak Reform
Board.......................................................... 7
Biographical information..................................... 8
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from Delaware............... 2
Hill, John H., Nominee to be Administrator of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., U.S. Representative from California....... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
McLean, Donna R., Nominee to be a Member of the Amtrak Reform
Board.......................................................... 12
Biographical information..................................... 12
Rosenker, Mark V., Nominee to be Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 20
Biographical information..................................... 21
Steinberg, Andrew B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs.......... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Biographical information..................................... 26

Appendix

Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia, prepared
statement...................................................... 41
Ephraimson-Abt, Hans, Spokesman, Air Crash Victims Families
Group, prepared statement...................................... 45
Lugar, Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, prepared statement. 41
Scardelletti, Robert A., International President, Transportation
Communications International Union, prepared statement......... 42
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
R. Hunter Biden.............................................. 58
John H. Hill................................................. 48
Donna R. McLean.............................................. 46
Mark V. Rosenker............................................. 59
Andrew B. Steinberg.......................................... 54
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg to:
John H. Hill................................................. 56
Donna R. McLean.............................................. 56
Andrew B. Steinberg.......................................... 57

NOMINATIONS TO THE AMTRAK REFORM
BOARD, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

----------

THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2006

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

The Chairman. Thank you, we're sorry for the votes that
have interrupted our schedule and appreciate your waiting. Now,
we're going to hear from five of the present nominees for
various transportation positions. We welcome you, the first
we'll hear from will be Senator Carper to introduce Mr. Biden
for the Amtrak Board.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
This afternoon the Committee will hear from five of the President's
nominees for various transportation positions. The Committee welcomes
each of you.
Hunter Biden and Donna McLean have been nominated for the Amtrak
Reform Board, and would serve for 5 years if confirmed. Amtrak is a
controversial topic of discussion for this Committee, and I look
forward to hearing what fresh ideas each of you will bring to the
Board. Senator Carper will introduce Mr. Biden, and Senator Lugar has
requested that a statement in support of Ms. McLean be placed in the
record.
John Hill has been nominated to be Administrator of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The FMCSA's principal mission is
to reduce the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities involving
large trucks and buses. Senator Lugar also has submitted a statement
for the record in support of Mr. Hill.
Mark Rosenker, who has been with the National Transportation Safety
Board for 3 years, has been nominated to be Chairman of the NTSB. Mr.
Rosenker has been the Acting Chairman since March 2005 and a Member of
the NTSB since 2003.
The work of the NTSB has been especially significant to Alaska. My
state lies under 20 percent of the airspace in the U.S. system,
contains over 20,000 pilots, and nearly 10,000 registered aircraft.
Because of the sheer number of aircraft and the weather challenges,
Alaska has experienced twice as many accidents than the Lower 48. The
role of the NTSB is crucial to improving our safety rate. The Committee
welcomes Congressman Issa this afternoon, who will introduce Mr.
Rosenker. Senator Allen has requested that a statement in support of
Mr. Rosenker be included in the record.
Andrew Steinberg has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs within the Department of
Transportation. If confirmed, Mr. Steinberg would be responsible for
the development, articulation, and review of policies for economic
issues in domestic and international transportation.
I have been notified that many of the nominees have family in
attendance today, and I hope the nominees will take a moment to
introduce their respective family members to the Committee when they
come to the table.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and to
Senator Burns and your colleagues. Today my oldest son
Christopher came to Washington with family including one of his
colleagues from a high school he just graduated from last week.
During the course of lunch and the time on the Hill, they met a
lot of our Senators who've seen my boys grow up over the years
through our Christmas cards and everyone remarked how big he's
gotten to be, and he's tall, he's like 17 years old and he's
taller than his dad and I think a whole lot smarter, too. They
marvel at how quickly these children grow up--is this the
little boy that I remember that was born when you were in the
House of Representatives? I said, yes he is.
Our children grow up and oftentimes, they make us mighty
proud. Today, I'm privileged to introduce the son of one of our
colleagues, Joe Biden, who's here today along with his wife,
Jill to support Hunter Biden. Hunter's joined by his wife and
children and other members of the family.
Hunter Biden is a native Delawarian and I would go on to
say that he's also been nominated to serve on the Amtrak Board
of Directors. When Hunter was unable to get into the University
of Delaware, he instead went on to Georgetown and then to Yale
Law School and managed to get through those OK. He's ended up
being Senior Vice President at MBNA one of the largest
financial institutions in the country. He served as Executive
Director of Economy Policy Coordination at the U.S. Department
of Commerce. About 5 years ago he went off and formed a law
firm here in Washington, D.C., and now they represent over 100
clients including a bunch of non-profit organizations and
educational institutions.
More specifically, though, and for our purposes and for the
purpose of this nomination, Hunter Biden has spent a lot of
time on Amtrak trains. Like his father, like our Congressman,
Mike Castle and myself, Hunter Biden has lived in Delaware
while using Amtrak to commute to his job as we commute to our
job in Washington almost every day of the week. You know, you
learn a lot about what could work and what would work better at
Amtrak by riding trains and talking to the passengers, the
commuters, the passengers, the folks who work on the trains and
make them work every day. You also have a chance to see the
huge economic benefit the region receives from having a strong
passenger rail corridor, something that should be available in
a lot of other parts of our country.
The second reason I am pleased to see this nomination move
forward is I believe it shows a beginning to move back toward a
bipartisan direction at least with respect to this particular
board. The Amtrak Board has traditionally had both Democratic
and Republican members, but for the past several years, it has
been partisan and it has been incomplete.
Last November, my colleagues recall that 93 members of the
Senate, supported Amtrak reauthorization, legislation
introduced by Senator Lautenberg, co-sponsored by myself, and I
know many Members of this Committee. We saw that Amtrak has
strong bipartisan support. Passenger rail, like highways and
airports, is not a partisan issue and shouldn't be a partisan
issue and it's a mode of travel that we believe is gaining
popularity in a time when commuters are being pinched by high
gas prices and frustrated with highway and airport congestion.
Finally, as we confirm a full, bipartisan Board at Amtrak,
that Board will be more able to take on the difficult issues
that face Amtrak, from tackling long-deferred maintenance,
modernizing the system nationwide and addressing demand for new
and expanded service across the country on already stretched
freight tracks. A full bipartisan Board that has been duly
confirmed by this Senate will have the credibility needed to
take on these challenges and move Amtrak and our country into
the 21st century. And while we are tackling these challenges,
it will be comforting for the millions of Amtrak riders and
commuters to know that one of their own, Hunter Biden, will be
on the Board of Directors.
And, if I could just say it's a point of personal
privilege, I have been privileged to have lived in Delaware
since 1973, since I got out of the Navy, and Joe Biden was one
of the first people I met when I arrived there. I've known his
sons for literally all of their adult lives. He and Jill have
raised two boys and a girl that any of us would be proud to
call our own and I am. It's deeply a privilege to sit here
today before them and before you to be able to offer him as our
candidate from Delaware to serve on this board. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator, for coming.
Congressman Issa, you have a person to introduce?

STATEMENT OF HON. DARRELL E. ISSA,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Congressman Issa. I do, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
Senator Inouye and Members of the Board. It gives me great
pleasure to introduce my dear friend and a great public
servant, Mark Rosenker who has been nominated by the President
to be Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Since his first confirmation more than three and a half
years ago, he has demonstrated himself as a highly qualified
and energized member and leader of this critically important
Federal agency. Before I talk more about my friend, if you
don't mind, a point of privilege also, his wife Heather is here
with us today and among her many sacrifices, she has seen him
trot all over the country in fulfilling both his board seat and
as the Acting Chairman of the National Transportation Safety
Board. He has been away a lot and been very proactive and I
appreciate her sacrifice up to date and obviously with your
indulgence, his continued sacrifice. I know that he also has
family and friends here today that are also looking forward to
this event, one that he has earned over a lifetime of public
service.
During his tenure at the National Transportation Safety
Board, Mark has brought a wealth of management and advocacy
experience to the Board. You may not know that General Mark
Rosenker has 37 years of Reserve and active duty. It's Major
General Rosenker who has been decorated with the Distinguished
Service Medal, Legion of Merit, and two Meritorious Service
medals. In his role as a General Officer and before that, up
through the ranks, he has been involved in exactly the skill
building that you need to have here, organizational activities
to prevent mishaps and then, if necessary, to be the face and
the leader to deal with the inevitable that will eventually
happen when there has been a problem. He is able to calmly
enter the scene, make the statements, bring about the people to
correct and to minimize that damage. I think that's a unique
combination of private sector and military experience that
first led to President Bush appointing Mark to be the Deputy
Assistant to the President and Director of the White House
Military Office on the first day of the Bush Administration.
In that senior staff position, Mark was the principal
advisor for all military support of the White House, which
includes policies, personnel, plans involving DOD assets such
as Air Force One, Marine One and White House transportation,
and although he never took me there, Camp David. After serving
nearly 2 years, I don't know if he did that for either of you,
but I'm hoping you'll confirm him anyway, but after serving--
don't go there Heather--after serving nearly 2 years at the
White House, President Bush nominated Mark to be a member of
the National Traffic Safety Board and since his confirmation by
the Senate in March of 2003 and then again in December of last
year, President Bush twice designated him to serve in the role
as Vice Chairman. And since March of last year, March of 2005,
Mark has been serving with distinction as the Acting Chairman.
During his time at the Board, Mark/Mr. Rosenker/General
Rosenker has been a strong and outspoken advocate for
transportation safety particularly one of his passions that he
has been focused on and I believe he will accomplish, is
working to minimize injuries and fatalities rather than simply
mitigating the results. His leadership has earned him the
Recreational Boating and Safety Issues Award, from the National
Safe Boating Council. Additionally, he has been recognized in
the aviation industry and if I can particularly focus on the
aviation industry, one of Mark's passions has been to get the
youngest among us, the under 2 years old, who presently are not
in seatbelts on aircraft, into seatbelts. That's an admirable
effort, one that's long overdue for general aviation and I
believe that, given his confirmation, that is an area of safety
that he will be proactive in minimizing accidents that often
happen when it's nothing but a disturbance in the air.
I would ask that the rest of my statement be put into the
record, since I want to respect the clock, but I have known
Mark Rosenker and General Rosenker for going on 20 years. I've
known him in the private sector and in his public duties, both
as a military officer and in his work in the White House. We
are very lucky that he has been standing in as the Acting
Chairman and I believe that if he's confirmed, he will serve
with distinction not previously seen in that role.
And I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Issa follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
U.S. Representative from California

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it gives me great pleasure
to introduce to you a very dear friend and a great public servant who
has been nominated by President Bush for Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board.
Since his first confirmation more than three and a half years ago,
he has demonstrated himself to be a highly qualified and energized
member and leader of this critically important Federal agency. Before I
talk more about Mark, I'd like to introduce his wife Heather. I'd also
like to welcome many of Mark's friends and colleagues who have come to
show their support for him as well.
During his tenure, Mark has brought a wealth of management and
advocacy experience to the board. With more than 37 years of active and
reserve duty in the Air Force, Mark has risen to the rank of Major
General. His decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal,
Legion of Merit, and two Meritorious Service medals.
Because of his unique combination of private sector and military
experience, President Bush appointed Mark to be a Deputy Assistant to
the President and the Director of the White House Military Office on
the first day of his administration.
In this senior staff position, Mark was the principal advisor for
all military support to the White House, which included policies,
personnel and plans involving DOD assets such as Air Force One, Marine
One and White House transportation, just to name a few.
After serving nearly 2 years at the White House, President Bush
nominated Mark to be a member of the NTSB. Since the Senate first
confirmed Mark in March of 2003 and then again in December of last
year, President Bush has twice designated him to serve in the role of
Vice Chairman. And since March of 2005, Mark has been serving with
distinction as the Acting Chairman.
During his time at the Board, Mark has been a strong and outspoken
advocate for transportation safety. Mark has focused his attention on
the prevention of accidents, injuries and fatalities, rather than just
mitigating the results.
For his leadership role in recreational boating safety issues, the
National Safe Boating Council presented Mark with their highest honor,
the Confluence Award. This award is traditionally given to Members of
Congress and Mark is one of a few executive branch people to receive
this award.
The aviation industry acknowledges his leadership role in the
challenging issue of preventing runway incursions. He has been
outspoken in attempting to get the FAA to require that all children
under the age of two be secured by safety belts while flying.
Mark has seen significant changes and advancements in
transportation safety and technologies since beginning his advocacy
career over 30 years ago representing the American Safety Belt Council,
the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and the Safety Helmet Council of
America .
Mark tells me that when he began talking about safety belt use laws
in the early 1970s, less than 5 percent of the American people used
their safety belts, and there were not state laws requiring their use.
Contrast that to the recent announcement from the Department of
Transportation, that 82 percent currently wear their belts with 49
states having some form of law to require their use.
Clearly Mark has demonstrated that he is capable and enthusiastic
about the board and its mission.
Once again, I am proud to introduce my good friend Mark Rosenker
and I urge all of you to support his nomination as Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board.

The Chairman. Thank you very much Mr. Issa. And we thank
you very much and we'll excuse you now and we'll ask that the
five nominees come to the table--Mr. Biden, Mr. Hill, Ms.
McLean, Mr. Rosenker and Mr. Steinberg.
Now, thank you, the Co-Chairman is here, I don't know if he
has an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for
this opportunity to congratulate all of the nominees that have
been selected to serve in positions that are very critical to
our transportation system. I ask that the rest of my statement
be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
I want to congratulate each of the nominees. You have been selected
to serve in roles that are critical to the future of America's
transportation system.
From transportation safety to national aviation policy, the work
you will perform at each of your respective agencies, should you be
confirmed, will help ensure that America's renowned transportation
system continues to support our vibrant economy and our great tradition
of efficient travel and mobility.
The position each of you has been appointed to comes with unique
challenges:

The Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) must enhance the Board's management, refocus the use of
the Academy, and ensure that reports are issued in a timely
manner, all while preserving the Board's high-caliber
investigative work.

Amtrak Board Members must continue the progress made by
former President David Gunn, and create an efficient and
effective national passenger railroad. Board members also must
work with the Congress to reauthorize the railroad, gain stable
and adequate funding, and promote new investments that will
unlock the promise of rail service in new corridors.

The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs faces an industry that has struggled for the past few
years, but also is full of opportunity and potential growth. It
is critical that the nominee work with the Congress to produce
solutions that help the country navigate an increasingly global
transportation network.

In recent interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regarding labor contracts the Administration has not been
particularly forthcoming with the Congress. The Department also made
significant missteps with its rulemaking on foreign control of U.S.
airlines. I urge the nominee to communicate directly and consistently
with this Committee. It will help all of us serve the public more
effectively. Add to these challenges the government-wide, budget
restraints brought on by historic deficits and the demands to improve
safety and mobility, your work becomes even more challenging.
I thank each of you for your commitment to public service and look
forward to hearing your perspectives today as we examine your
credentials and views. Should you be confirmed, I can assure you that
we will be in touch regularly.

The Chairman. I apologize, does any other Member have a
statement to make and I'd ask that my opening statement be put
in the record. All right, Senator Lautenberg?

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Senator Lautenberg. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. These
are critical jobs that are to be filled here, and these are
very good candidates. Of course, when someone says that to you,
and you've been around here long enough to know better, they'll
usually say something pleasant before the rest comes. But in
any event, I really do believe that we have some outstanding
people here. I just wanted to raise a question--and I don't
want to pick on anybody in particular, Mr. Chairman--but let me
start with Mr. Hill's thoughts on several issues. I'd like to
hear about them, regarding, as a result of the job that he has
held, the size and weight of trucks, particularly since
Secretary Mineta commented last week that he'd consider
expanding the use of triple trailer vehicles. So I want to help
you prepare yourself for the question, Mr. Hill.
And I would hope that the Nation's top truck safety
advocate wouldn't be advocating a change that might include
some new safety risks on the road.
In terms of my interest, as you know very well, Mr.
Chairman, I think everybody pretty much does when it comes to
Amtrak, I'm glad to see that we're going to be filling two of
these posts and look forward to having a chance to chat with
them. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your ever dutiful response
to issues that we're concerned about and this hearing is one of
them. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, so what we intend to do
is to go through each member and as you're introduced and we
hear from you, we hope that you will start off by introducing
your parents and family with you, some famous some infamous and
some you don't want to introduce anyway, but do it, well, do
it. That means that we're starting with Hunter Biden and Donna
McLean, who have been nominated to the Amtrak Reform Board and
will serve for 5 years if confirmed. It is a controversial
subject of discussion for this Committee, and I'm sure that
you'll have some questions as we go forward.
Senator Carper has introduced you, Mr. Biden and Senator
Lugar has sent a statement in support of Ms. McLean. I've known
you longer than you've been alive, Hunter, so if you want to
introduce your family, and I think you can ignore your dad, I
think we know him.
Mr. Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My mother is sitting
right here, Jill Biden, my oldest daughter, Naomi is right
here, my youngest daughter, Maisy, who's sleeping, or she just
woke up, my wife Kathleen, and in my dad's lap, my middle
daughter, Finnegan Biden. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Well, do you have a
statement for us, Mr. Hunter?

STATEMENT OF R. HUNTER BIDEN, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
AMTRAK REFORM BOARD

Mr. Biden. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am
honored to appear before you today, and I am honored that
President Bush has nominated me to be a Member of the Amtrak
Reform Board. Amtrak touches so many facets of so many
Americans lives, and if confirmed, I look forward to working
with the Members of this Committee and the Congress to make
sure that Amtrak continues to play that important role to so
many people who rely on it daily. I see this appointment as a
great opportunity to help turn around what can and must be a
key component of our transportation system. What should be one
of our success stories; right now it is one of our biggest
challenges.
I believe that my experience in government, at the U.S.
Department of Commerce working for both Secretary Daley and
Secretary Mineta, and in the private sector, in both banking
and the law has prepared me well for this position. At the same
time, as a frequent commuter and Amtrak customer for over 30
years, I have literally logged thousands of miles on Amtrak. I
hope that I can bring my perspective to the Board as one of the
millions of customers who ride and depend upon Amtrak every
day. It has been through my experience as a customer that I
have developed a deep respect for the organization and its
employees, and I know how much they believe in and are
committed to making Amtrak a safe and reliable service. It is
also as a longtime Amtrak customer that I know first hand some
of the many problems Amtrak faces as an organization.
Working together, I believe that Members of the Board,
Members of Congress, the Administration and the employees of
Amtrak can overcome many of the issues intercity rail faces
today. If confirmed, I look forward to being a part of that
discussion and look forward to the challenge. Amtrak is too
important to our economy for it not to be in the best financial
health possible. I take the fiduciary responsibility required
by the Members of the Board very seriously, and believe that
above all else that the American people expect that its
national rail system be run as safely, efficiently and cost-
effectively as possible.
I also recognize that Amtrak affects, and is affected by,
many of the most important issues of the day. In an era of
mounting energy concerns in which driving a car is getting more
and more expensive, intercity rail must be part of the
solution. A healthy national passenger rail system can provide
millions of commuters with a reliable and hopefully, cost-
effective alternative to other forms of transportation. In
addition, I believe that in the 21st Century a robust, cost
efficient national passenger rail system is a necessity, and
that you can not look at the energy and environmental issues
facing our country today without looking at intercity rail and
Amtrak as a part of the solution.
Finally, if confirmed, I particularly look forward to
working with the Members of this Committee and the Congress to
ensure that Amtrak is an integral part of our homeland security
strategy. I believe that it is imperative that Amtrak work
closely with Federal and local law enforcement to make sure
that our commuter rail system is safe from terrorist attack. I
hope to have the opportunity to work with the Members of this
Committee and the Congress to solve some of these challenges
facing Amtrak and I want to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you and I welcome any questions the Committee may
have. Thank you.
[The biographical information of Mr. Biden follows:]

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Robert Hunter
Biden.
2. Position to which nominated: Amtrak Reform Board.
3. Date of Nomination: May 16, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

Information not released to the public.

5. Date and Place of Birth: 02/04/1970; Wilmington, DE.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

Kathleen Biden, Mother.
Naomi James Biden, Age 12.
Finnegan James Biden, Age 5.
Roberta Mabel Biden, Age 7.

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.

Georgetown University, BA, 1992.
Yale Law School, JD, 1996.

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.
As a Senior Vice President at MBNA America, I worked in several
executive management roles, including managing an investigative unit of
the consumer fraud division and management of all external and internal
``Y2K'' communications. As Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy
Coordination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, I was responsible for
managing and coordinating the communication and implementation of
Department and Executive Office E-Commerce policy initiatives within
the Office of The Secretary. Finally. since founding a law firm 5 years
ago, I, along with one other partner, have built a firm that now has
fifteen employees, 10 partners. and represent over 100 clients.
9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last 5 years: N/A.
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last 5 years.

Oldaker, Biden and Belair, LLP--Partner
The National Group, LLP--Partner
Owasco, P.C.--Proprietor
LBB Holdings U.S.A.--Managing Member
National Prostate Cancer Coalition--Member, Board of Directors

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.

Fieldstone Country Club, Wilmington, DE (12/2001-8/2003)
The Club has no restrictive policies.
Yale Club, NY, NY--no restrictions.

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so,
indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and
whether you are personally liable for that debt: No.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of 5500 or more for the past 10 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Political Committee Candidate Date (in $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Pryor for U.S. Mark Pryor 02/05/02 1,000
Senate
Mark Pryor for U.S. Mark Pryor 02/05/02 1,000
Senate
Friends of Barbara Boxer Barbara Boxer 06/26/02 1,000
Friends of Barbara Boxer Barbara Boxer 06/26/02 1,000
Ron Kirk for U.S. Senate Ronald Kirk 09/24/02 500
Wofford for Congress Daniel B Wofford 09/24/02 1,000
Jean A Carnahan PAC 10/31/02 1,000
Friends of Barbara Boxer Barbara Boxer 03/31/03 1,000
Friends of Barbara Boxer Barbara Boxer 03/31/03 1,000
Daniel K Inouye for U.S. Daniel Inouye 06/27/03 1,000
Senate
TOM PAC 12/01/03 2,500
TOM PAC 12/15/03 1,000
Citizens for Arlen Arlen Specter 01/22/04 1,000
Specter
New Leadership for 02/09/04 1,000
America PAC
Carnahan in Congress Russ Carnahan 03/29/04 2,000
Chris John for U.S. Chris John 03/30/04 500
Senate
Case for Congress Edward Case 06/30/04 500
Jesse Jackson JR for Jessie Jackson Jr. 07/02/04 1,000
Congress
Vermont Victory 2004 Leahy for U.S. Senate 09/20/04 500
Carnahan in Congress Russ Carnahan 11/18/04 1,000
Cantwell 2006 Maria Cantwell 01/28/05 500
Searchlight Leadership 02/17/05 500
Fund
Tom Lantos for Congress Tom Lantos 05/05/05 1,000
Friends of Robert C. Byrd Robert Byrd 06/30/05 1,000
Carnahan in Congress Russ Carnahan 06/30/05 2,100
Stabenow for U.S. Senate Debbie Stabenow 09/30/05 1,000
Bob Casey for Robert Casey 11/08/05 2,100
Pennsylvania
Ben Cardin for Senate Benjamin Cardin 12/05/05 500
John D. Dingell for John Dingell 12/14/05 500
Congress
Harold Ford for Senate Harold Ford 05/17/06 1,000
Sheldon Whitehouse for Sheldon Whitehouse 05/24/06 4,200
Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 34,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements: N/A.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed: N/A.
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony: N/A.

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
I will remain a partner of Oldaker, Biden and Belair, LLP; remain
proprietor of Owasco, P.C.; remain Managing Member of LBB Holdings USA
LLC; and remain on the Board of Directors of the National Prostate
Cancer Coalition. In addition, I have an agreement of compensation for
prior work with the law firm of Krupnick, Campbell; and will serve as
interim CEO of Paradigm Global Advisors (a fund that invests in hedge
funds that LLB holdings is currently looking at acquiring).
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain.
I will remain a partner of Oldaker, Biden and Belair, LLP; remain
proprietor of Owasco, P.C.; remain Managing Member of LBB Holdings USA
LLC; and remain on the Board of Directors of the National Prostate
Cancer Coalition. In addition, I have an agreement of compensation for
prior work with the law firm of Krupnick, Campbell; and will serve as
interim CEO of Paradigm Global Advisors (a fund that invests in hedge
funds that LLB holdings is currently looking at acquiring).
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: N/A.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: I know of none.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
As a registered lobbyist I have lobbied on behalf of not-for-profit
Universities and Hospitals seeking Federal appropriations dollars.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
I will notify Amtrak's General Counsel immediately of any potential
conflicts of interest and find a way to resolve them.

C. LEGAL MATTERS

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, we'll now turn to you
Ms. McLean, Senator Lugar has, as I said has sent his statement
here, he's involved in another briefing right now and I'll read
it for the information for those who are here.
He indicates he is pleased to have the opportunity to
introduce you to this Committee and states that you've had many
years of experience in Federal Government, specifically working
at Transportation Policy. After receiving your Bachelor's and
Master's degree from Indiana University School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, you joined the U.S. Department of
Transportation as a Program Analyst, you've built your
background in transportation to become a Budget Examiner on
transportation issues at the Office of Management Budget. From
1993 to 1999, you served as a staffer on the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and after 2001 you've been
nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary for Budget Programs
and Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
You served also, as the Program Manager and lecturer for
the Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental
Affairs, Washington Leadership Program and you served as a
teacher and mentored several students who interned in Senator
Lugar's office and on the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
staff. I'm told that you're joined today by your husband and
two daughters, would we please have you introduce them.
Ms. McLean. Thank you, yes. I'm here with my husband,
Marcus Peacock and my two daughters, May and Iona, who are
nine, and my sister, Robin, Miles McLean and my niece Hailey.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, we'll print this
representation of Senator Lugar on the record before, instead
of what I said, but was pleased to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF DONNA R. McLEAN, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
AMTRAK REFORM BOARD

Ms. McLean. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee. It's an honor for me to appear before you today
and to have been nominated by President Bush to serve on the
Amtrak Reform Board. If confirmed, I look forward to working
closely with this Committee on Amtrak issues.
All of my career, including 15 years of Federal service, I
have focused on transportation policy. Over these years, we
have all seen transportation, our transportation systems become
more and more congested. More recently, we've seen a
significant leap in oil prices. It's unclear how the increasing
transportation congestion, along with the increase in fuel
prices will reshape our transportation system.
However, these dynamics mean that the viability of our
inter-city passenger rail system is more important than ever.
If confirmed, I look forward to helping Amtrak better position
itself to play an improved role in our transportation network.
Amtrak, the business, has made some significant strides over
the past several years. Amtrak is now following generally-
accepted accounting principles, Amtrak is investing more in its
capital needs, Amtrak is focused on improving on-time
performance, and Amtrak's ridership is growing. Amtrak is
working daily to improve its service.
If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with this committee,
to strive for a more effective and efficient Amtrak. Thank you
again for asking me to appear before you today, and I will be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The biographical information of Ms. McLean follows:]

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Donna Rae
McLean.
2. Position to which nominated: Member of the Amtrak Reform Board.
3. Date of Nomination: May 16, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

Residence: information not released to the public.
Office: 300 Independence Ave, SE, Washington, DC 20003.

5. Date and Place of Birth: July 9, 1964; St. Louis, Missouri.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

Husband: Marcus C. Peacock, Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Daughter: Iona Rae McLean, 9 years old.

Daughter: Mey Rose McLean, 9 years old.

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.

May 1986, BA, Political Science and Anthropology, Indiana
University.

May 1989, MPA, Public Finance and Policy Analysis, Indiana
University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial
Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation (May 2001 to
September 2003).

Assistant Administrator for Financial Management, U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration (August 1999 to May 2001).

Professional Staff Member, U.S. House of Representatives,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Aviation
Subcommittee (February 1993 to August 1999).

Budget Examiner, U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last 5 years.

Working on a PriceWaterhouseCoopers contract for consulting
services for the National Transportation Safety Board.

Working on a project with The Staubach Company for consulting
services for the Department of Homeland Security.

Working on a project with BAE for consulting services for the
Federal Aviation Administration.

Working on a project with Cornerstone Government Affairs, LLC
with the city of Springfield and the Springfield/Branson
Airport, MO.

August 2004, I served on a Presidential Emergency Board (No.
238) investigating the dispute between Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and the United
Transportation Union--it was settled by the two parties without
Board action.

10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last 5 years.

Donna McLean Associates, LLC, owner since September 2003.

Indiana University, Adjunct Professor, School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, Washington Leadership Program (January
2004 to present).

Current consulting contracts with the following companies: The
Boeing Company, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Project ACTA.

Recent consulting contracts with The Staubach Company, Unite
Alliance, and BAE.

Past consulting contracts with: The National Business Aviation
Association, EDS, Fund for American Studies.

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex. race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.

Member of the Board of Visitors, Indiana University, School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, current since 2003.

AERO Club Member since 2004.

Member of the Board of Capital Hill Arts Workshop, Capital Hill
Youth Chorus since 2004.

Girl Scout Leader since 2004.

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? No.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.

3/05--$500, Friends of Conrad Burns.
6/05--$1,000, Knollenberg for Congress Committee.
4/05--$1,000, Hal Rogers for Congress.
8/04--$500, Hal Rogers for Congress.
4/04--2,000, Bush-Cheney 2004 Inc.

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.

U.S. Department of Transportation 911 medal; awarded ``For
Service and Sacrifice to the United States of America During
and After the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001.''

Selected by the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at
Indiana University as the Alumni of the Year; 2001.

National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board,
Graduate Scholarship; 1989.

Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs;
Full Tuition Scholarship for Masters Program, elected to Pi
Alpha Alpha honor society, and received Chancellor Wells Book
Award for Academic Achievement; 1986-1989.

Elected to Pi Sigma Alpha, honor society for political science,
Indiana University; 1986.

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
Since this is a volunteer position, I will maintain all of my
existing contracts, including contracts with PricewaterhouseCoopers,
The Boeing Company, Indiana University, Project ACTA. None of these
contracts involve railroad issues and therefore, do not present a
conflict of interest. However, if either the DOT general counsel or
Amtrak general counsel raises a concern, we will work out something
that is agreeable to all parties.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? See the
question above, #1.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
I have discussed my contracts with executive branch counsel, and do
not believe any of my investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships present a conflict of interest for this position.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
Since 2003, when I stared Donna McLean Associates, LLC, I have not
had any contracts involving railroad issues. While I was the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs and the Chief Financial Officer at
the U.S. DOT, I was involved in several Amtrak-related issues. While
holding this position, I was involved in Amtrak's application and
approval of a Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure (RRIF) loan. In
the case that the 2002 RRIF loan would arise, I would need to consult
with the Amtrak counsel on whether or not I would need to be recused
from this topic.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.

Supporting the President's Budget Request for the SASO program
on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers (on-going).

Supporting efforts to maintain the President's Budget Request
for the U.S. Merchant Marines Academy on behalf of Project ATCA
(on-going).

Exploring ways to certify unmanned aerial vehicles in the air
traffic system (February-April 2006).

Supporting efforts of the Springfield/Branson Airport (2005).

Exploring the ability to re-open National Airport to general
aviation aircraft, on behalf of the National Business Aviation
Association (2004-2005).

During my tenure as Assistant Secretary of Budget and Programs
and Chief Financial Officer at the U.S. DOT, I did communicate
with Congress (testimony, meetings, telephone calls) in support
of the President's agenda.

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
At this time, I do not anticipate any significant conflict of
interest issues. However, if something arises or if someone raises any
questions, I will work with the DOT and Amtrak general counsel to
resolve any conflict of interest issues.

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association. disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? See answer to number 6 below.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: I do not know of any additional
relevant information.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? If so. please explain.
An EEO complaint was filed while I was the Assistant Administrator
at FAA for Financial Services. I, along with other top FAA managers,
decided to restructure a troubled program--the project was called
DELPHI and involved transitioning to a new Oracle based accounting
system. We restructured the project as an Integrated Project Team (IPT)
and brought in an IPT lead--which happened to be an African American
woman.
A member of the current team, Ms. Roberson, asked to be removed
from the team (she was unhappy with the restructuring). Although we
asked her to stay, she insisted that she wanted to leave the team. We
agreed to reassign her to an area of her request, we did not reduce her
pay, or demote her, or reprimand her in any way.
On December 20, 2000, Ms. Roberson filed an EEO Complaint claiming
that she was ``replaced as project manager of the DELPHI project, and
functionally demoted due to my race (African American) and age (over
40-52) by agency management . . . .''
I offered to try to settle this situation through mediation, which
began while I was at FAA. However, it was settled after I left the FAA.
I do not know what the final agreement was.

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Our next nominee is John
Hill to be Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration under the Department of Transportation. Senator
Lugar also submitted a statement on your behalf, which I'll
print in the record, let me summarize it.
It states that after graduating from Taylor University with
a Bachelor's degree in 1973, Mr. Hill began a long and
distinguished career with the Indiana State Police and rose to
the rank of Major and served as the Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement Division Commander and also led the Field
Enforcement and Logistics Division of the Indiana State Police.
In 2003, Mr. Hill was selected to be Chief Safety Officer and
Assistant Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
He also served on the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administration Task Force and is currently the acting Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. I'll print the rest of it in the record, Mr.
Hill, and we'd be pleased to introduce whoever might be with
you and also your statement, please.
Mr. Hill. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to
introduce my family, but they're unable to be here today. We
had previously planned a wedding reception this weekend, so my
wife and family are taking care of that business, so they are
here hopefully on the Internet.
The Chairman. You can hold one of Mr. Biden's kids and let
his dad go back to work.
[Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. HILL, NOMINEE TO BE

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Hill. Let me read to you my statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to
appear before you today to be the President's nominee to become
the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
Thank you for this opportunity to introduce myself and to
briefly share with you my vision for the Agency. For the past 3
years I have served as the Assistant Administrator and Chief
Safety Officer of FMCSA. During this time I've had the
opportunity to work with our state and local partners. I've
also had the opportunity to collaborate with Congressional
staff to establish safety priorities for the Agency. If
confirmed, I will work closely with Congress to continue to
improve key program areas.
Before my service with the Department of Transportation, I
spent nearly 29 years with the Indiana State Police, including
several years dedicated exclusively to motor carrier safety. A
key lesson I learned in Indiana that has resonated even louder
since joining FMCSA is that the goal of commercial vehicle
safety depends on careful cooperation and open communication.
Recent years of domestic economic expansion and heightened
demand on our transportation system have created new
challenges. Increased need for freight and passenger movement
must be guided by increased safety on our highways.
This is achievable, but the solutions are not simple. The
industry is immense, over 685,000 carriers that FMCSA regulates
and it is a diverse industry, with lots of different types of
carriers and over 11 million commercial vehicle drivers. To be
successful, state and local governments, with their enforcement
expertise and dedicated work forces, must be fully engaged at
every level of the safety program. The U.S. Department of
Transportation must continue to work with Congress to provide
guidance, tools, and resources to those governments. And the
motor carrier industry, safety advocate groups, shippers,
commercial vehicle manufacturers, and logistics providers must
all collaborate to become joint problem-solvers, not simply
critics of each other.
If confirmed, I will work hard to bring these stakeholders
together and encourage cooperation. I will also work with the
other surface administrations within the Department of
Transportation, specifically the Federal Highway Administration
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to build
upon Secretary Mineta's unified approach to safety planning
initiatives, data improvements, and guidance to the states.
While working collaboratively to enhance safety, I will
remember the statutory authority Congress has provided.
If confirmed, I will continue to strengthen our agency's
enforcement activities. My extensive experience in law
enforcement has taught me that good laws are effective when
obeyed. For those who do not voluntarily comply with safety and
commercial carrier regulations, we will target enforcement to
promote compliance. FMCSA writes regulations, we conduct
research, educate the public, distribute grants, promote safety
results through enforcement, but it is all aimed at one clear
and simple mission; to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities
involving large trucks and buses. If confirmed by the Senate, I
am committed to improving these activities by leading the
dedicated employees of the FMCSA to accomplish this mission.
Thank you and I'll be happy to answer your questions.
[The biographical information of Mr. Hill follows:]

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): John Harvey
Hill.
2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration.
3. Date of Nomination: May 16, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

Residence: information not released to the public.
Office: 400 7th Street SW, Room 8202, Washington, DC 20590.

5. Date and Place of Birth: August 24, 1951; New Albany, Indiana.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

Nancy Ruth (Dylhoff) Hill, physical trainer, Curves of
Arlington (Women's Fitness), part-time employment.

Children: Two sons--Nathan John Hill, age 31; Micah John Hill,
age 29.

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.

Bachelor of Arts, 1973, Taylor University.

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.

Indiana State Police--Captain, Acting Commander, Enforcement
Division, 1986-1988.

Indiana State Police--Major, Commander, Logistics Division,
1988-1989.

Indiana State Police--Major, Commander, Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement Division, 1989-1994; 2000-2003.

Indiana State Police--Major, Commander, Field Enforcement,
1994-2000.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration--Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety Officer,
2003-Present.

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last 5 years: None.
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last 5 years.

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)--
Chairman of the Law Enforcement Committee, 2000-2003.

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators subsidiary
organization--AAMVAnet, Inc.--Member of Board of Directors
2001-2002.

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA), I served as Chairman of their Law Enforcement
Committee (2000-2003), several executive-planning groups and as
a board member of their affiliated subsidiary organization--
AAMVAnet, Inc. (2001-2002).

Indiana State Police Pioneers--fraternal organization of
retired Indiana State Police employees (2003-Present); served
as a member and no leadership responsibilities.

Indiana State Police Alliance--professional organization of
active Indiana State Police Officers (1996-2003); served as a
member and no leadership responsibilities.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)--(2000-2003); a
member only.

Community Church of Greenwood--(1986-2003); served as an Elder
(Board of Directors) and Chairman of the Board, 1992.

Immanuel Bible Church--(2003-Present); member only.

AMF International--(1986-1999); a religious organization,
mission outreach, board of trustees.

Retired Troopers Association--a fraternal association for
retired troopers from across the country (2005-Present); a
member only.

Republican National Committee (RNC)--member only (2002-
Present).

These organizations do not restrict membership on the basis of
sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap.

McIntosh for Governor--$500.
Indiana Republican Party--$600.
Republican National Committee--$1,550.
Bush-Cheney 2004--$2,100.

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.

Distinguished Alumni for Personal Achievement, Taylor
University, 2000.

15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
I assisted with and authored articles in the Indiana State Police
Alliance magazine and AAMVA's Move magazine. These articles pertained
to my role as a police officer, traffic safety expert (e.g., the role
of motor vehicle data in roadside enforcement) or department commander
with responsibilities for a specific aspect of the Indiana State Police
mission (e.g., article on department's aviation unit, marijuana
eradication program or riot control unit--all of which I had
responsibility to manage). Although available to the public, the
circulation of these periodicals was generally limited to the law
enforcement or motor vehicle administrator community.
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony: None.

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
As a retiree from the Indiana State Police Department, I am
provided a monthly pension consistent with Indiana State Police
Department Pension Trust guidelines.
When I was a state employee, I participated in State of Indiana's
Public Employees Deferred Compensation Plan (an IRS 457 Plan--the plan
is referred to as Hoosier Start). After leaving state government in
2003, I elected to maintain the funds indefinitely in the Plan;
however, I receive no continuing contributions from the state. I may
elect distribution of the funds at any time consistent with IRS
guidelines.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? None.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships, which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: Please refer to the
Deputy General Counsel's opinion letter.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy: None.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items: Please refer to the Deputy General Counsel's opinion letter.

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? If so, please explain.
Yes. In the Indiana State Police, when I was a commander of the
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division in the early 1990s (I cannot be
more specific on the date) a female employee disliked the management
decision about scheduling and work reporting times. She along with
other employees filed a complaint against her first line supervisor
accusing him of treating her and the other employees differently based
on their race. I affirmed the supervisor's decision and the employee
filed a similar complaint against me. The department's Civil Rights/
Equal Employment Officer (EEO) investigated it; the complaint was not
substantiated and was determined to be unfounded.

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Rosenker, you were introduced,
were all of your family introduced?
Mr. Rosenker. Mr. Chairman, my in-laws are here. Mr. and
Mrs. Jack Balden they're from New Jersey and I'm delighted to
have them with me. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Do you have a statement, sir?

STATEMENT OF MARK V. ROSENKER, NOMINEE TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Mr. Rosenker. A brief one, sir. Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the Committee. I am pleased and honored to appear
before your Committee for the third time during this
Administration as a nominee. I'm grateful to President Bush for
this nomination to be Chairman of the National Transportation
Safety Board and particularly his confidence in my ability to
continue to serve our Nation in this unique and critically
important position. I'd also like to thank Senator George Allen
from my home state of Virginia for the statement that he
submitted for the record and his support for the third time.
I'm honored that my friend, Congressman Darrell Issa of
California, has taken the time from his busy schedule to offer
his support and his flattering introduction.
For more than 3 years, I've been privileged to serve as a
Member, Vice Chairman and most recently Acting Chairman of this
small, but well-known and respected Federal agency. The NTSB,
for nearly four decades, has been at the forefront of
transportation safety issues, the protector, if you will, of
America's vital transportation system. NTSB is not only our
Nation's premier accident investigation agency, but also enjoys
a well-earned reputation as the most effective and
authoritative independent safety body in the world. I've said
this before and will continue to say, the professional men and
women who make up the NTSB are the best in the business.
I would also like to recognize my fellow board members,
Member Debbie Hersman, and Member Kitty Higgins, who are here
today and I thank them for their support. Whether dealing with
determining the probable cause of an accident, recommending
safety improvements, or deciding on Federal enforcement
actions, we routinely join together with one objective in mind,
raising the standard of safety within our Nation's
transportation community.
If confirmed as Chairman, I commit to you and the American
people, I will do my best to effectively and efficiently manage
this important agency, making sure that its ability to carry
out its critical mission is never compromised. Mr. Chairman,
distinguished Members of the Committee, I am sure you will
agree, America's transportation industry is one of its most
important economic sectors and as such protecting the vitality
of this sector by ensuring the safe movement of people and
commerce is the primary and most crucial role of the NTSB.
If confirmed, I will be honored to lead this agency and its
highly competent team of transportation safety professionals
and advocates. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The biographical information of Mr. Rosenker follows:]

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Mark Victor
Rosenker.
2. Position to which nominated: Chairman, National Transportation
Safety Board.
3. Date of Nomination: April 24, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: NTSB, 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW, Washington, DC
20594.

5. Date and Place of Birth: 12/08/46; Baltimore, MD.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

Heather Beldon Rosenker, Senior Vice President, Fleishman-
Hillard Public Relations.

No children.

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.

Baltimore Community College, 1965-1966.

University of Maryland, 1966-1969, BA Communications.

University of Maryland, University College, Graduate Study
1970-1971.

Department of Defense Information School, Graduate, 1969.

Air Command and Staff College, Extension Course Institute,
Graduate, 1983-1985.

Air War College, Associate Studies Program, Graduate, 1988-
1990.

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.
Member, Vice Chairman and Acting Chairman National
Transportation Safety Board, March 2003-present.

United States Air Force and Air Force Reserve, Major General,
Mobilization Assistant to the Commander, Air Force Reserve
Command, (current rank and assignment) June 1969-present.

Department of Transportation, Transportation Security
Administration, Program Manager, Special Projects Office,
November 2002-March 2003.

The White House, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director
of the White House Military Office, January 2001-November 2002.

United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), Assistant Executive
Director and Managing Director of the Washington, DC Office.
November 1999-January 2001.

Electronic Industries Alliance, a.k.a. (Electronic Industries
Association) Corporate Officer and Vice President, Public
Affairs, February 1977-October 1999.

Motorized Bicycle Association, a.k.a. (American Moped
Association), Director of Communications, January 1975-January
1976.

Daniel J. Edelman Public Relations, Account Executive,
September 1973-January 1975. Represented American Safety Belt
Council, Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and the Safety Helmet
Council of America.

United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)--Assistant Executive
Director for External Affairs and Managing Director,
Washington, D.C. office.

Boat Slip Rental Property--50 percent interest; sold January
2002.

Brat Pack Investment Club--20 percent interest. Sole holding
1,295 shares of ADC Telecommunications. (Divested my holdings
and dissolved the Investment Club in Dec., 2005).

Army Navy Club, Washington, D.C.--1999-present.
Andrews AFB Officers Club, Andrews AFB, MD--1969-present.
Capitol Hill Club--1973-2000.
Bryce Resort, Basye, VA--1986-present.
Military Order of the Carabao--2001-present.
Aero Club, Board Member--2005-present.

2004--Bush-Cheney Campaign--$2,000.
2000--Darrell Issa for Congress--$500.

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.

University of Maryland Centennial Distinguished Graduate, 2001.

American Battle Monuments Commission Distinguished Service
Medal.

USAF Distinguished Service Medal.

Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal (1 oak leaf cluster)
USAF Commendation Medal.

Department of Defense Achievement Medal.

USAF Achievement Medal (1 oak leaf cluster).

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers: None.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? No.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: None.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
During my appointment as a Member of the NTSB, I have been a strong
transportation safety advocate and on numerous occasions invited to
testify before state legislatures, particularly on issues of highway
and recreational boating safety. In addition, the Board has made a
significant number of recommendations to Federal agencies, state and
local governments, organizations, operators and manufacturers
concerning regulations or safety issues dealing with various modes of
transportation.
During my career as chief spokesman for the Electronic Industries
Alliance, representing the U.S. electronics industry, and the United
Network for Organ Sharing, UNOS, (the national organ transplant
network), I have made numerous statements and answered a myriad of
media queries on a host of issues having to do with the laws,
regulations, and policies of those two diverse communities. Some of the
major issues I spoke out in support of included: NAFTA, Making
Permanent the R&D Tax Credit, Improvement of Export Controls, Rewrite
of Circular A76, privatization and outsourcing, Federal Rules
pertaining to Organ Donation and Allocation. My role was not that of a
registered lobbyist.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
As a senior officer in the Air Force Reserve, if confirmed, I will
continue to recuse myself from any investigation involving an USAF
aircraft unless the Board's General Counsel found my participation
necessary and appropriate. I believe there are no other issues that
would constitute a conflict of interest.

C. LEGAL MATTERS

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

The Chairman. Our final nominee is Andrew B. Steinberg of
Maryland to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation. It's my
understanding you have, under your responsibility, the
development, articulation, and review of policies for economic
issues and domestic and international transportation. Do you
have a family here with you, Mr. Steinberg?
Mr. Steinberg. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, behind me to my
right is my wife, Roxann, immediately behind me is my son,
Malcolm, who is age 11 and to my left is my daughter, Madeline,
who is age 13.
The Chairman. Thank you, well we do welcome all the family
members and we're happy that you'd bring them here. We'd like
to have your statement, please.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW B. STEINBERG, NOMINEE TO BE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR

AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Steinberg. All right, Chairman Stevens, Senator
Lautenberg, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to be considered for the position of Assistant
Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and International
Affairs. I'm honored that President Bush and Secretary Mineta
asked me to continue serving the public in this capacity and if
confirmed, I'll work hard to earn the confidence of every
Member of this Committee. I am also grateful for the support
I've received over the last 3 years from FAA Administrator
Marion Blakey, and look forward to a close working
relationship.
I couldn't be here today, of course, without the love,
friendship and encouragement of my family who always remind me
that public service is a high privilege. I'd also like to thank
my father, Irwin Steinberg, and my late mother, Molly, for
encouraging me to seek out challenges like these and
acknowledge my late father-in-law, Bob Anderson, for the career
he spent as an engineer and attorney at the Boeing Company.
My own involvement with the airline industry started about
twenty years ago as a young lawyer in private practice working
on an antitrust case, I immersed myself into airline economic
issues and saw how fascinating but demanding, this industry is.
I later worked in-house for an airline as a general counsel of
a company that sells reservation systems and technology
services to travel companies, and as an executive at an
Internet travel site. As the FAA's Chief Counsel, I have tried
to broaden my horizons, handling a range of issues affecting
safety capacity, manufacturing and general aviation. During my
career, I've also been fortunate to work on international
problems, like code-sharing, overseas joint ventures, and
market access.
My excitement over the prospect of this new role is
enhanced by the many challenges we face in aviation and in the
growing global marketplace for transportation services. As you
know, the purview of the office I am seeking extends beyond
aviation, to all modes of transportation.
If confirmed, I will focus my energies on three areas;
first, given the vital role that air transportation plays in
this country, the health of the domestic industry must remain a
national priority. We shouldn't be reluctant to re-examine
policy assumptions or the myriad regulatory burdens we impose.
An industry that perennially either loses money or makes
suboptimal returns can't sustain quality and breadth of service
your constituents expect.
Second, reauthorization of our aviation programs next year
provides an opportunity to address many long-term issues, and I
hope to assist you in finding the right solutions. It will be
particularly important to enable the Next Generation Air
Transportation system which promises to reduce congestion and
make air travel more accessible and affordable everywhere.
Third, as Secretary Mineta has demonstrated, we must remain
vigilant in protecting U.S. leadership in all modes of
transportation services and manufacturing, promoting safety in
open markets throughout the world. There's a lot of opportunity
I think, for American companies in markets that are still
developing their transportation infrastructure. DOT has a key
role to play here in promoting common technological and safety
standards. Clearly there are no easy issues, here. But, I
promise you an open mind and a fresh perspective. I've learned
over the years to seek common ground and practical solutions
among stakeholders and truly believe that this committee and
its staff have much to offer me.
If confirmed, I look forward to working together. I'd ask
that my witness statement, Mr. Chairman, be submitted for the
record and would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Steinberg follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andrew B. Steinberg, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs

Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye, distinguished members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be considered for the
position of Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and
International Affairs. I was honored to be asked earlier this year by
President Bush and Secretary Mineta to continue serving the public in
this important capacity and if confirmed, I will work hard to earn the
confidence of every Member of this Committee. As I pursue this
position, I am also grateful for the support I received over the last 3
years from FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, and look forward to a close
working relationship with the FAA.
I could not be here today without the love, friendship and
encouragement of my wife, Roxann, and my two children, Madeline and
Malcolm, who are here today and always remind me that public service is
a high privilege. I would also like to thank my father, Irwin
Steinberg, and my late mother, for encouraging me to seek out such
challenges and acknowledge my late father in law, Bob Anderson, for the
career he spent as an engineer and lawyer at the Boeing Company.
My own involvement with the airline industry started over twenty
years ago when, as a young attorney working on an antitrust case for a
major air carrier, I immersed myself into airline economic issues and
saw how incredibly fascinating, competitive, and demanding, this
industry can be. I later worked in-house for an airline, on a wide
variety of commercial, environmental, and employment law issues, became
the general counsel of a company providing computerized reservation
systems and technology services to travel agents and airlines, and
finally worked as a business executive and lawyer at a leading consumer
online travel site. As Chief Counsel at the FAA, I have broadened my
horizons through the many legal issues affecting aviation safety and
capacity and through exposure to aerospace, GA and business aviation.
I've been fortunate during my career to work on international business
problems, ranging from airline code-sharing, to the formation of
overseas joint ventures, and European competition law. Soon after I
joined the FAA I helped settle a longstanding dispute with several
foreign airlines over the assessment of overflight fees. We agreed to
set up a rulemaking committee to assist us in setting the fees and the
airlines abandoned years of litigation and began paying fees without
protest.
The excitement I feel over the prospect of serving in this new
capacity is only enhanced by the opportunity it presents to address the
many daunting challenges this country faces not only in the aviation
sector but also in the growing global marketplace for transportation
services. As Members of this Committee well know, the purview of the
Office of Aviation and International Affairs extends beyond aviation,
and includes the development and coordination of international
transportation policy involving all modes of transportation. If
confirmed, I will focus my energies on three main areas: the state of
the domestic air transportation industry; reauthorization of our
aviation programs and their role in facilitating the transition from
today's ground-based air traffic system to a satellite-based one; and
ongoing U.S. leadership in transportation services and manufacturing to
promote safety, open markets, and enhance trade throughout the world.
None of these arenas has partisan lines, thus I plan to work closely
with all of you to advance the Nation's common interests.
Given the vital role air transportation plays in this country, a
healthy domestic airline industry always is a national priority. Having
been in the midst of a fundamental restructuring for some years, the
industry is showing modest signs of recovery. Indeed, the overwhelming
losses of network carriers obscure their own dramatic progress in
cutting their costs and the fact that smaller sectors of the industry
remain reasonably profitable. It is far too early, however, to declare
that the industry as a whole is ``out of the woods.'' We should,
therefore, remain open to the possibility that the industry faces
structural obstacles to long term success. (For example, while much
attention has been paid to the role of high fuel prices, other
industries such as utilities have similar cost inputs but not the same
fate.) Because some of these obstacles may be linked to aviation policy
matters, we should be willing to test our underlying policy assumptions
and to examine the costs and benefits of the myriad regulatory burdens
we impose on airlines (some of which hold over from the CAB). These are
not academic issues: an industry that perennially either loses money or
makes suboptimal returns cannot, as we are seeing, provide the quality
and breadth of service your constituents expect; the financial woes of
the network airlines in recent years has meant a decline in service to
smaller communities. Indeed, the contrast between passenger and cargo
carriers is striking, as the latter remain highly profitable and
innovative, producing good value at low prices.
Reauthorization next year provides an occasion to address such
long-term issues, and I hope to assist you in identifying the right
solutions. I am encouraged by the efforts of the Joint Planning and
Development Office to spearhead the adoption of the next generation
transportation system (NGATS), which promises the same kind of radical
improvements in air travel that the Internet produced for
communications. This system is a key part of the Secretary's aggressive
plan to reduce transportation congestion. Moreover, by combining
increases in airspace capacity created by NGATS, the existing
infrastructure of 5,000 public use airports (currently underutilized),
and the new breed of very light jets, we have a unique opportunity to
make air travel much more accessible and affordable for all parts of
the country, while facilitating growth in business travel. But this
system will not come about unless we find creative, bipartisan
solutions to the funding challenges we face, such as greater reliance
of public-private partnerships.
We should all be proud of the leading role the United States enjoys
in the global market for transportation products and services but also
vigilant about protecting that lead. Our aerospace industry today
enjoys a positive balance of trade; ensuring that it competes on a
level playing field is a high priority. Across all modes of
transportation, there will be many opportunities for U.S. companies to
provide their expertise in overseas markets still developing a
transportation infrastructure, and DOT has a role to play in promoting
common technological and safety standards. I hope to build on the
successes of the Secretary in opening up transport markets overseas, as
we also seek fully liberalized trading arrangements with all our major
aviation partners.
In closing, I know there are many tough issues to tackle here. I
have reached no conclusions about the right solutions to the problems
that exist and promise an open mind and fresh perspective. Just as
importantly, my years in the industry have taught me this: wherever
possible we should seek common ground among our stakeholders. This
Committee and its expert professional staff have many years of
experience and much wisdom to offer me, as we approach these issues.
Should I be confirmed, I truly look forward to working together.
______

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Andrew Bart
Steinberg.
2. Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary of
Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs.
3. Date of Nomination: February 10, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

Residence: Information not released to the public.

Office: Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief
Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, Room 900-E, Washington, DC
20591.

5. Date and Place of Birth: October 12, 1958; Perth Amboy, New
Jersey.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

Roxann Steinberg (Homemaker); children: Madeline Steinberg (Age
13), Malcolm Steinberg (Age 10).

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.

Princeton University; A.B., 1980.
Harvard Law School; J.D., 1984.

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.

American Airlines, Inc. (1990-1996): Attorney (1990-91); Senior
Attorney (1991-94); Associate General Counsel (1994-96).

Sabre, Inc. (1996-2000): Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary (1996-98); Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (1998-2000).

Travelocity.com, Inc. (1999-2002): Executive Vice President--
Administration, General Counsel and Secretary.

Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation (2003-present): Chief Counsel.

Travelocity.com, Inc. (1999-2002): Executive Vice President--
Administration, General Counsel and Secretary.

Sabre, Inc. (2002): Consultant.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (2002-2003): Vice President, General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary (resigned upon my appointment
to the FAA).

Computer and Communications Industry Association (2002-03):
Director (resigned upon my appointment to the FAA).

Republican National Lawyers Association (since 2000).

Boy Scouts of America (since 2000).

American Bar Association (periodically since 1984).

Computer and Communications Industry Association; Director,
2002-2003.

State Bars of California (since 1984); Texas (since 1992) and
the District of Columbia (since 1994).

Four Seasons Sports Club, Irving, Texas (1997-2001) None of
these organizations restricts membership on the basis of sex,
race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap.

George W. Bush--$1,000 (2004)
Wayne Allard--$1,000 (2002)
Norm Coleman--$1,000 (2002)
Elizabeth Dole--$1,000 (2002)
John E. Sununu--$1,000 (2002)
James Talent--$1,000 (2002)
Travelocity PAC--$1,629 (2002)
Travelocity PAC--$917 (2002)
Sabre PAC--$1,410 (2000)
Sabre PAC--$1,500 (2000)
Sabre PAC--$1,483 (1998)
Sabre PAC--$539 (1997)

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements: None.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.

``Air Traffic Modernization: How to Avoid Gridlock,'' ABA Air
and Space Law Forum, Spring Meeting (2006).

``Legal Aspects of Aviation Safety Oversight,'' Conference on
Aviation Regulation in Europe (2005).

``Airports and Airlines: Partners or Adversaries,'' ABA Air and
Space Law Forum, Annual Meeting (2005).

``The Role of Government in the Evolving World of Business and
Personal Aviation,'' Airports Council International--NA, Legal
Committee Meeting (2005).

``The Role of Government in the Evolving World of Business and
Personal Aviation,'' Strategic Research Institute, 10th Annual
Conference on Corporate Aircraft Transactions (2005).

``Government Regulation in the Evolving World of `Personal
Aviation,' '' NTSB Bar Association, Aviation and Transportation
Law Conference (2005).

``History and Future of Flight: Government and the New Personal
Aviation Models,'' School of Engineering and Applied Science,
Princeton University (2005).

``The FAA, Release 1.x: Regulation of the Evolving Personal
Business Aviation Models,'' PC Forum, Flight School (2005).

``The New Frontier: Regulation of the Evolving Business
Aviation Models,'' ABA Air and Space Law Forum (2005).

Dealing with Airport Congestion: The Regulatory Challenge of
Demand Management, Air and Space Lawyer (2005) (co-author).

``The FAA Flight Plan: Legal Update,'' ABA Section of
Litigation, Aviation Litigation Committee (2004).

``Recent FAA Policies and Programs,'' NTSB Bar Association
(2004).

Remarks before the American Association of Airport Executives
(2003).

Remarks before the Travel Management Alliance (2003).

Remarks before the Airports Council International--NA, Legal
Committee Meeting (2003).

Orbitz Controversy: The Travelocity Perspective, Section of
Antitrust Law, Transportation Update (Summer 2002).

American Bar Association Spring Meeting, Antitrust Section,
keynote speaker (2000).

``E-commerce,'' IATA Legal Symposium (2000).

``Emerging Issues in the Year of Aviation,'' ABA Forum on Air
and Space Law (1999).

``Monopolization and Predatory Practices,'' ABA Antitrust
Section, Antitrust Fundamentals (1994).

Antitrust Implications of Airline Code-Sharing Alliances,
Antitrust Report (1994); Airline Pricing Practices, Antitrust
Report (1993).

Effect of Ch. 11 on Competition in the Airline Industry,
Federal Bar Assn. (1993) (co-author).

Note: Speeches are indicated by quotation marks; publications
are italicized.

16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony.

On April 4, 2001, I testified before the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
concerning business method patents. A written statement was
also submitted.

On October 2, 1998, I testified before the Antitrust
Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning
international antitrust enforcement and the ``positive comity''
referral of an antitrust complaint by the Department of Justice
regarding computerized reservation systems to the European
Commission. A written statement was also submitted.

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
I have two retirement plans administered by Sabre, Inc., a former
employer: a 401(K) and a pension plan.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? No.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
Please refer to the Deputy General Counsel's opinion letter.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
As general counsel of Travelocity.com and as a consultant to Sabre,
I participated in various advocacy efforts designed to persuade the
Department of Transportation and Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, to require air carriers and their online joint venture to
provide access to certain airfare and inventory information to
competing travel agencies. As Chief Counsel of the FAA, I have assisted
the agency in presenting Administration positions to the Congress on a
variety of legislative and policy issues affecting FAA authorization or
appropriations, including continuation of the FAA contract tower
program, assessment of user fees on foreign carrier overflights of U.S.
airspace, and FAA contract negotiations with the air traffic
controllers union. In addition, in my current capacity, I oversee the
work of the Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation, who regularly
provides technical assistance to the Congress.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
Please refer to the Deputy General Counsel's opinion letter.

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain.
I served as an officer of three public corporations (Church &
Dwight Co., Inc.; Travelocity.com Inc.; and Sabre, Inc.). Each of these
firms had substantial revenues ($.5-$2 billion) and was regularly
involved in business litigation and administrative proceedings before
state and Federal agencies. As general counsel, my role was to defend
the corporation. None of the proceedings involved me personally.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? If so, please explain.
As the head of a large office at FAA, I am the ``deciding
official'' in dozens of personnel actions affecting 260 attorneys,
paralegals and support staff. As is true with the rest of the agency,
these actions infrequently result in claims challenging the actions
(e.g., hiring selections, promotions, special assignments, annual
salary raises) and citing purported employment discrimination or merit-
system principles. In three such matters during my tenure, personnel
actions I had approved based on recommendations to me from my staff
were challenged. As to these matters (which are confidential
administrative proceedings), mediation led to the voluntary dismissal
of one by the complainant and is being pursued in the other two. I
believe strongly in equal employment opportunity and in the rigorous
enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, and note that no case resulted
in any adverse finding.

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes, to the
best of my ability.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes, to the best of my ability.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, we appreciate the fact
that you truncated that statement. It will be printed in the
record in full. In that, we're going to have a period of time
for just questions. We're going to leave you all as a bank if
that's agreeable. I want to ask you first, Mr. Biden, I'm sure
you know that there's a relay of difference of opinion here,
even on this Committee and throughout the Senate and the
Congress with regard to the future of Amtrak. You will be a
member of the reform board, which obviously carries the
connotation that Congress and the Administration, and the
American people believe there must be reform. Have you reviewed
the history of Amtrak and are you prepared to take on the task
of real reform?
Mr. Biden. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed much of the
history of Amtrak and much of the current history and read both
the GAO report and CRS report, Amtrak's budget for fiscal year
06 and fiscal year 07 and also have been following the debate
very closely. I agree with you and I think, would most
everyone, that Amtrak is in need of reform. I think that it is
also in need of leadership from a fully complimented board and
if confirmed, the way that I see my role is basically to keep
an open mind and try to seek common solutions that we can agree
on between the Members of the Board, Congress, and the
employees of Amtrak.
The Chairman. Well, mention's already been made of the
obvious fact that the alternative means of transportation are
much more expensive already than the transportation on Amtrak.
There has been a reluctance for the Amtrak Board to adjust the
rate for fear that they might lose riders if the rates went too
high. For one, I've lived in this area a very long time, I
realize the rate necessity for Amtrak, but it does seem that
the past management has been insensitive to the problem of a
permanent plan for financing of Amtrak. So, I encourage you to
look into that, and congratulate you for being willing to try.
I've got to tell you, it's almost an impossible task the way I
see it. So, thank you for being willing to try.
Mr. Biden. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Ms. McLean, your background is one that's a
little different, I think, in your statements you did mention
the significant leaps in oil prices and I think we all are
looking for intercity passenger concepts that will take the
burden off of the roads, but also recognize that the increasing
cost of those who must commute to work. Let me ask you what I
asked Mr. Biden, have you looked at its history? Have you made
a study of this problem and do you realize you're not really
going on the Amtrak Board, you are going on the Amtrak Reform
Board?
Ms. McLean. Yes, sir, and I have looked, as Hunter was
saying also, in the background of Amtrak. I've spent a few
hours with Amtrak prior to this hearing and if I am to be
confirmed, I look forward to spending many more hours with them
understanding the business. I think there are some wonderful
opportunities to make Amtrak a more efficient and effective
intercity passenger rail service and I hope to have that
opportunity to explore that in more depth.
The Chairman. Well, I don't have any other questions, I
just wish you luck. I really think what the problem is, is
whether this new board is going to grasp the sense of reform
and urgency behind it that I think that Congress and the
Administration and even the people involved in using it realize
that there must be some change and it's going to take some
thinking out of the box about this system, I think, in order to
make it work.
Mr. Hill, I was born in Indiana, so I'm happy to see you
here I really think that you have a most interesting area to be
involved with. During your time when you were at the state
agencies that I mentioned, what did you find was the most
important factors that affect motor vehicle accidents and
driver safety.
Mr. Hill. Well, specifically in Indiana, I've found that
the problem of getting driver behavior to change was
significant. We just recently created, did a study on truck
safety in our agency, it took 4 years to complete it, and the
overwhelming results from that, Mr. Chairman, were that driver
inattention, driver factors, driver interference in the
passenger area are really contributing to crashes in our
country and we also addressed, in the state of Indiana, not
only the driver focus, but we made a conscious effort to have a
presence of enforcement, so that violators knew there were
consequences when they did not follow the law.
So, a strong enforcement program coupled with a strong
outreach program so that there's clear understanding of what is
expected and then consequences if people don't follow it.
The Chairman. One of the things that has been discussed in
this Committee quite often now, is the problem of the increased
amount of communications available to people who drive
automobiles and how much, whether and how much those new
systems are contributing to the loss of attention, that loss of
dedication to really watching the automobile and its gauges.
Did you go into that one there in Indiana?
Mr. Hill. We did not have specific study, we relied a lot
on the Federal Government to provide that research and I will
tell you that in Federal Motor Carrier Safety, we are doing
research in that area to look at guidance systems onboard
tractor trailers that will allow us to keep the driver focused
and give warning signs and signals to the driver when there's
some deviation from the lane of travel and if confirmed, I will
continue to work with this Committee on such issues and try to
bring them forward for possible future legislation as needed.
The Chairman. Well, we also have jurisdiction over
communications, I think there ought to be some sort of way to
really educate the public about how operating one of these
devices, whether it's a cell phone, a Blackberry, even a cell
phone that has a voice microphone embedded in the dashboard,
all of those things, are really, I think contributing to the
lack of attention to the increased problem and with the density
of traffic now, it does seem to me, that if you're going down
the street, almost everyone you look at has something in their
hand besides putting them on the steering wheel, you know, and
I think we really ought to get some concentration on that and I
hope that you'll take a look at it.
Mr. Rosenker, my state was selected because of our
landscape for the next generation of safety and air traffic
management safety programs that really determine the causes of
accidents and I've had an accident, I was a survivor of a plane
crash and I remember too well the report we got about that
crash after I did come back to work and I remember particularly
going out after the Alaska Airlines crash and meeting with your
people, they were very good, very good. But, I wonder whether
we pass on to the industry the real information that we learned
about accidents of this type. Have you concentrated on that in
terms of how do the findings that your board makes affect, what
impact that they have on the industry that creates these
machines and the people that regulate them?
Mr. Rosenker. Senator, we work very closely with the
industry and the regulator, the FAA. Matter of fact, a study
which we did in your state in 1995 resulted in, what I think, a
very effective program and that's the program of Capstone,
which has been extremely helpful in the GA community. So, yes
sir, we do believe there are technological answers and advances
that can help and this Medallion program, although not
technological, is also a very fine program as it relates to the
commercial carriers.
The Chairman. I was on one of the test flights for Capstone
2 days before Christmas in 2001, I think, I know we're involved
in those, but I think sometimes that, I'm talking about the
basic, take the Alaska Airlines crash, I never really heard
whether there was anything that went to the industry as a
result of that crash and we all know what happened to it, it
was upside down, it went into the ocean and the concept of that
tail device, can you tell me, was that tail device ever
modified?
Mr. Rosenker. Sir, it was and that was a jack screw issue
and lubrication and changes were made both in maintenance
schedules and lubrication, that type of thing. So, we believe
that that issue is well out there within the maintenance
community and the operating community.
The Chairman. If you're confirmed, do you have any new
ideas, you know, management concepts you're going to take to
the board?
Mr. Rosenker. Sir, my objective is to basically move the
back log and tighten up the schedule of reports and
investigation analysis. We've taken too long in the past. GAO
talked about that recently in our reauthorization, we agree
with that. We're looking at technological advances which will
help us along with management improvements which we believe
will tighten up our ability to do an investigation, do the
analysis, find the probable cause and make the recommendation
to prevent that type of accident from happening again. We've
made tremendous progress here in the last year, if you take a
snapshot of where we were a year ago, our production, our
report completion is up by 50 percent.
The Chairman. That's good news. Mr. Steinberg, I'm sure you
know that in my state 70 percent of the inner city
transportation is by air. People in this Committee get tired of
hearing that, but we have to have different systems for
transportation of mail, different system for assuring that
there be sufficient number of planes going to those remote
villages every week and we have to have a different
communication system and we depend heavily not only on the
planes for personal travel, but they're absolutely necessary in
the commercial world the cargo that goes into these small
cities. Can you tell me, have you ever really compared the
country to determine, in terms of air transportation, what the
variance is on reliance on aviation for the various factors of
aviation, passenger service, inner city service, and cargo
delivery as well as mail delivery? Have you made any studies
like that?
Mr. Steinberg. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, I can't
personally say that I've done a statistical analysis, but it is
obvious to me the critical role that aviation plays in your
state. I think that they call Alaska the flyingest state in the
union. One of the first things I did when I became Chief
Counsel of the FAA was go to Alaska, so I could see first hand,
just the role that aviation plays there and I think that a very
high priority for me, if I should be confirmed for this
position is to look at the issue of service to small
communities and ensure that citizens in your state and
elsewhere receive frequent safe affordable air transportation.
The Chairman. Well, Ms. Blakey has really paid a lot of
attention to Alaska and to some of the programs that Mr.
Rosenker mentioned, Capstone and the Medallion program and the
various programs we have put into effect, we've reduced traffic
fatalities, now, by more than 50 percent because of these
programs. But, I find additional objections here in the
Congress the kind of funding that's necessary to continue those
programs, we have a very small road system, we have one fifth
the size of the United States and, as I've said, 70 percent of
the travel between cities must be by air, there doesn't seem to
be any willingness to equate the problem of, if the airplanes
don't fly, you know what we're going to have to do, we're going
to have to build roads and if we start building roads across
our state, they're not going to be accusing us of taking too
much money for bridges, they're going to understand how much
money we need for roads. So, I think, what I'm saying to you,
you've got an oversight responsibility now as Assistant
Secretary and I hope that you'll work with NTSB and with FAA
and make sure that there's an understanding of the need for
these systems to continue. Support of these safety programs is
vital, I think, and support of innovation, the innovation
that's the GPS alone on a small airplane now can cut costs of
flying in half because you don't have to go from point to
point, you can go directly where you're going and know where
you are all the time.
So, I think we have to have a better way to introduce
innovation into the smaller planes and I would hope that you
would really understand you're office in the past has basically
been associated with interstate transportation with the
commercial airline coast to coast long haul carriers, what I'm
saying is I hope you'll remember rural America when you're
confirmed. Senator Lautenberg.
Mr. Steinberg. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, I think
aviation to Alaska compares very much to rail for New Jersey.
We probably have more flights per square acre, if one can
measure that, than any state in the country. We have four
significant airports starting with Newark, the biggest,
Atlantic City International, Morristown Airport, and Teterboro
Airport that are largely used for general aviation and
industry. I'm very much concerned about Amtrak and I would say
that the focus on reform that the Chairman raised here, may be
interpreted differently by different folks.
Reform suggests better--that things should be ``improved.''
But the question is--do we ``improve'' Amtrak by starving it to
death of capital? That could be a final ``improvement'' that
would result in the railroad not existing anymore. Hunter--I
would call you Mr. Biden, but I'd be afraid your father would
stand up--so I'm going to call you Hunter, and besides we've
known each other such a long time--I'm pleased to see you here
and with the understanding that you have so well, of what
Amtrak means to states like Delaware and then we go on to New
Jersey, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, you
name it, in the most densely populated area of the country.
So, when I look at reform and I look at the
``improvements'' that could be made, I see that we have yet to
make the investment in Amtrak. Ms. McLean, I spoke to you about
this the other day. Investments have not really been sufficient
to get a first class railroad in our country, and we fail to do
that at our peril. We witnessed this during 9/11, when aviation
shut down. No one ever believed that would be possible, but it
was that day and Amtrak was the only way to carry people from
Washington. The train brought up several Congressmen and
Senators from Washington to New York to see what had happened
that tragic day when New Jersey lost some 700 people and New
York almost 2,000. Other states also lost people. It was a
change in America, one that we never dreamed would happen, but
has left a nightmarish impact on us ever since then. And so, I
question whether or not the Amtrak Reform Board is there to see
that Amtrak ``improves'' its service to the country or whether
or not it is there to further whittle away at Amtrak's ability
to operate.
Ms. McLean, we had a good discussion the other day, and I
know that you understand a lot about transportation, but a
funding level has been proposed for Amtrak which frankly would
require shut down of the National Passenger Rail System. Now,
from what you know about the company's finances, and I urge
that you take a look at those, is a $900 million appropriation
enough to maintain a safe, up-to-date, reliable, national rail
system?
Ms. McLean. I did take your advice yesterday, and looked a
little bit more at the numbers. I'm not sure if the marks that
the House provided last, I guess just a few days ago is the
right number yet, it looks like the revenues are up this year
for Amtrak above the projections and expenditures are actually
a little bit below projections, which is good news.
Senator Lautenberg. Does that mean the railroad is
operating at a surplus?
Ms. McLean. It's just, as far as I understood from the
information that I looked at yesterday with FRA, is that the
projections are more optimistic than anticipated for revenue.
Senator Lautenberg. No, Ms. McLean, that doesn't mean that
Amtrak would be operating with a surplus. You know we have
capital expenses, we have debt service, we have operating
expenses, all of those things, and so, whatever one we choke
off, could again be the death knell for Amtrak. We know that
there is an attitude, a preponderant attitude I'd say within
the Administration, that Amtrak is not a necessary part of our
transportation system. So once again, I hope that you had a
chance, as I encouraged the other day, to look at the numbers
and see what they represent. So can you give me a more direct
answer, please?
Ms. McLean. Well, let me say that I completely support a
robust inner city passenger rail system for this country, it's
absolutely necessary and I wouldn't have raised my hand to be
considered for this position if I didn't feel that an inner
city passenger rail system for this country is absolutely
necessary. And as I said in my statement, with the changing
dynamics in the transportation industry, if confirmed, I'm
hoping to work with Amtrak to find a, perhaps, a more
aggressive placement in our transportation network, so.
Senator Lautenberg. Does that take money?
Ms. McLean. Yes, it does, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, if Amtrak didn't operate,
just in the corridor, the northeast corridor, we'd need more
than 10,000 flights a year to substitute for the passenger
trafficking that Amtrak presently covers and everyone knows
that there's not a better expert in the Senate on aviation than
Senator Stevens. I have a nexus in aviation personnel as well
and we're going to be looking at the introduction of some 5,000
very light jets in the next 10 years. The sky is infinite and
as a consequence, we have to deal with it the best way we can,
including a strong Amtrak.
Turning to Mr. Steinberg, the FAA announced on Monday that
it's going to unilaterally impose a new contract on some 15,000
air traffic controllers. This contract covers a wide range of
unresolved bargaining issues and in court you argued that the
FAA could impose new conditions regarding pay and benefits, but
not terms about working conditions. Sixty days has passed since
Congress was notified about FAA's intent. Now was it your
advice to FAA that Federal law allows FAA to impose this change
in working conditions as well?
Mr. Steinberg. Well, thank you Senator, and of course my
role through this was to provide the administrator with my
interpretation of the Federal Aviation Act, the provisions that
you just mentioned as well as advice and counsel on how to
proceed. Let me just say this, the statute that you're
referring to was part of an effort that I'm sure you're aware
of in 96 to provide personnel reform to the agency and we were
directed to come up with a personnel management system which
was broadly defined to include working conditions as well as
pay and benefits. So in giving advice to the Administrator, I
believe that it was consistent with the statute of that working
conditions.
Senator Lautenberg. So you think that the court gave you
that latitude to make the decision that went beyond pay and
benefits in its interpretation of laws going back to 1996, did
you say? When it was intended to reform the entire personnel
system?
Mr. Steinberg. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. But, Mr. Steinberg, in all fairness,
here, you are an attorney, a skilled attorney, but I don't
think it reflects well upon you to make an argument in court--
the U.S. Court of Appeals--then turn around and advise the FAA
to do just the opposite. It was an appeals court that decided
this and they ruled in your favor after listening to your
arguments. So if there's an interpretation that you think can
go beyond the pay and benefits issue, then I think it
constitutes an interpretation that's unnecessarily broad. Your
action in this air traffic controller case created a lot of
unnecessary work for the Congress. Just so we can plan ahead,
are there any other laws that you anticipate re-interpreting if
you're confirmed for this position?
Mr. Steinberg. Well, Senator, again, in looking at the
Federal Aviation Act, I attempted to do what I thought was
right. The statute, as you may be aware, contained a provision
that said that we couldn't bargain over wages and benefits
except by using the impasse mechanism. That impasse mechanism
referred to the personnel management system, so I did think it
was a reasonable position that working conditions were part of
the mix.
My role as Assistant Secretary will not be to interpret the
law, but to advise the Secretary on the important aviation
policy issues that we face. The air traffic control issue was a
tough issue, and I respect the arguments that were made on both
sides and I look forward to, as the difficult aviation issues
come forward, to working with the Committee to find the right
solutions.
Senator Lautenberg. But you didn't accept the plain
language of the law requiring submission to include the union's
objections and reasons for the objections. Did the union
provide the objections, or were these more or less your
interpretations?
Mr. Steinberg. Senator, when we transmitted our proposal to
the Congress, we did include both sides of proposals. I recall
that immediately thereafter, the union also made a number of
filings. I believe we complied with the statute and I certainly
believe that the Congress, provided with the information that
you needed to make a determination about whether to initiate.
Senator Lautenberg. I like your commitment that you review
this situation with us directly if confirmed, I'd appreciate
that.
Mr. Steinberg. I'd be happy to.
Senator Lautenberg. OK, Mr. Hill, Secretary Mineta said
that he'd be amenable to the increased use of triple trailer
trucks. Now, that's something that's of grave concern to me
because of the known safety risks with these trucks. Have you
ever been on the highway turnpike in New Jersey or related
roads in New Jersey?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, Senator Lautenberg, I have been.
Senator Lautenberg. I don't know whether you'd like to have
your family riding in front of, along side of, or behind one of
those triple trailer trucks on our roads, but I would say this,
I've fought very hard to limit triple-truck use to 16 states,
where it now is possible, there are all kinds of films and
evidence that suggest that triple-trailer trucks present a
heightened safety risk and can cause significant damage on
roads not specifically prepared to handle them. Would you
oppose the re-introduction of these vehicles to our highways?
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg for that question.
The size and weight issue, as you know back in the language
from 1991 as you indicated, they dealt with this and the freeze
was placed on at that time during that re-authorization period.
In the next re-authorization period that we're currently in, it
has continued that we have not expanded that freeze,
delineation. At this time, there is not statutory for me to
proceed on that, Federal highway administration deals with size
weight in our department, we will commit to you, if confirmed,
that we'll work closely with this Committee and the Federal
Highway Administration to study the issues?
Senator Lautenberg. Do you oppose the expanded use of
triple trucks, to limit them to where they are now?
Mr. Hill. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to----
Senator Lautenberg. I'm not Chairman yet, but I'm going to
be soon.
Mr. Hill. Sorry, Senator Lautenberg, thank you, I didn't
mean to demote you. Senator Lautenberg, I would, we would have
to confer with you and the Committee on this issue and we'll be
committed to do that.
Senator Lautenberg. You're right about that. OK, thank you,
and last, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one more question of Mr.
Hill. You were Chief Safety Officer for the FMCSA--these
acronyms get worse all the time. You had a direct role in
developing the hours of service regulations that were
overturned by the United States Court of Appeals in 2004. Even
though the court required the FMC to re-examine and overhaul
the regulation, I'm concerned that the rule that was adopted in
2005 was almost functionally identical as the original rule and
jeopardized the safety of truck drivers and all motorists on
the highways. Did you have a role in developing these hours of
service regulations for FMC?
Mr. Hill. Senator Lautenberg, I was involved in the review
of that rule. The court specifically directed our agency to
look in the consideration of the hours of service rule about
driver health. It said that we did not properly consider it, we
considered considerable research, reviewed the latest science
involving sleep, respiratory sleep and we couldn't, I can say
to you that we have the latest information in the rule that the
court wanted us to address. Now, there were other issues the
court brought up in terms of DITDA, and one of those, for
example was EOBR's and we are presently working on EOBR's and
will be publishing a rule later this year, notice of proposed
rulemaking on that issue and we're working very closely to make
sure that we address the concerns of the court and fatigue on
highways.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, we've had some terrible, terrible
truck accidents as a result of sleepy drivers and I was
thinking, Mr. Chairman, that they have a deadman's throttle in
trains, but at least you know if the train continues, that it's
going to be exactly where it's supposed to be. So we couldn't
have something like that in a cab of a truck. But you raise an
interesting question. Can we somehow or other, get some
instrumentation in the cab that would alert the driver or alert
some recipient of the fact that this driver is beyond being
able to function properly?
I said that this would be the last question, but I meant
that it was next to the last, Mr. Chairman. This one is now the
last. We're good friends. You're looking at two seasoned
veterans. Were you in Vietnam like I was or was it an earlier
war? I was in Europe during the same war, so we're novelties
around here now. I hope we continue to enjoy our shared
distinctions.
I'm concerned that under this Administration, the agency
FMC has not been effective enough when it comes to improving
truck safety and if confirmed, what steps might you take to
reduce the over 5,000 large truck-related deaths each year?
Mr. Hill. Thank you Senator, I share your concern with
that. I know you've been a champion of traffic safety, I know
when I was with the state police, we welcomed the .08 rule that
you helped get through and we've benefited from a lot of the
safety initiatives that this Committee and Congress has passed.
I want to just commit to you three things. I'm committed to the
whole concept of safety, I've dedicated my whole life to public
safety, traffic safety, that's the one thing I have done in my
adult life and I will continue to do that.
Second, I want to provide strong leadership for the Agency,
I believe we need to deal with regulatory development, I think
we need to get the rules out that you folks have asked us to do
in this Committee and the Congress and we're working diligently
to get that back log erased. Second I want to make sure that
our relationship with the states continues to work well. They
do a lot of the enforcement out there. They enforce with the
grants that our committees, your Committee provides and so it's
important that if we're going to make safety gains that those
people really are in sync with us and that we have a good
working relationship.
And then last, I will hold our executives accountable for
results, not just talking about processes, but we will look to
results and I'm committed to that and will work with this
Committee and Congress if you choose to confirm me.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Hill. Thank you Senator, I appreciate that.
The Chairman. We have two mark-ups for this Committee
scheduled in June, one June 20, we'll basically be concerned
with telecommunications or communications. June 27 we'll also
have a mark-up. We'll do our best to get these nominations
before the scheduled mark-ups and I personally want to thank
you all. You're in the level of government that affects
millions of Americans daily and we congratulate you for being
willing to take on these tasks and wish you very well in your
endeavors. So, we'll do our best to see that these nominations
are reported to the floor as soon as possible.
Thank you, and I thank the families. I'm sorry for the
delay caused by the floor schedule. I know you've been here for
a long time and your children have been very patient. Thank you
very much.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Allen, U.S. Senator from Virginia

Mr. Chairman, fellow members of the Committee, I am pleased to once
again introduce a fellow Virginian--Mark Rosenker--who comes before us
as President's nominee to be Chairman of the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB).
Mark has served ably as Vice Chairman and, since March 2005, as
Acting Chairman of the NTSB. During this very busy and in some ways
stressful period for the Safety Board, his steady hand and strong
leadership ensured that the NTSB continued to fulfill its mandate,
doing the work that is so important to the safety of all our
constituents.
Before talking more about Mark, I'd like to welcome his wife,
Heather, who is with us today, and also Mark's colleagues and friends
who have come to show their support for him as well.
Mark brings an extensive background of management and advocacy
experience, both civilian and military, to his work at the Safety
Board.
His record includes more than 37 years of active and reserve duty
in the Air Force, where Mark has risen to the rank of Major General.
His decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of
Merit and two Meritorious Service Medals.
Mark also served as Director of the White House Military Office,
with the rank of Deputy Assistant to the President. In this senior
staff position, Mark was the principal advisor for all military support
to the White House, including managing DOD assets such as Air Force
One, Marine One, and the White House transportation system.
After serving nearly 2 years at the White House, Mark was nominated
by the President to be a Member of the NTSB.
During his time at the Safety Board, Mark has been a strong and
outspoken advocate for transportation safety. He is dedicated to the
Safety Board's mission of objective, independent accident
investigations and making sure we learn the hard lessons of
transportation tragedies. He also never misses an opportunity to push
for measures for preventing accidents, rather than just mitigating the
results.
Mark has strong ties to this region. A Virginian now, he spent a
good deal of his youth in Maryland, and is a graduate of the University
of Maryland.
Clearly Mark has demonstrated that he is capable and enthusiastic
about the Board and its mission. I urge my colleagues to swiftly
support his confirmation.
______

Prepared Statement of Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator from Indiana

I am pleased to have an opportunity to introduce Mr. John H. Hill
to the Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation.
After graduating from Taylor University with a Bachelor's degree in
1973, John began a long and distinguished career with the Indiana State
Police. John rose to the rank of Major and served as the Commercial
Vehicle Enforcement Division Commander and also led the Field
Enforcement and Logistics Divisions within the Indiana State Police.
During his tenure with the Indiana State Police, John served on several
national committees concerning transportation-related matters,
including the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems Committee.
In June of 2003, John was selected to be the Chief Safety Officer
and Assistant Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). He also served on the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators Task Force for Identification Security.
John is currently serving as the Acting Deputy Administrator of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
John's unique background blends experiences from the fields of law
enforcement and transportation oversight He has used his talents and
intellect to bring people together in an effort to balance motor
carrier safety with industry efficiency. John is committed to work
toward the FMCSA mission to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities
involving large trucks and buses.
John resides in Greenwood, Indiana, and shares this honor with his
wife, Pepper and his son, Mica and daughter-in-law, Andrea, as well his
son, Nathan and daughter-in-law, Jennifer.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to introduce John H.
Hill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

I am also pleased to have an opportunity to introduce Donna McLean
to the Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation.
Donna has many years of experience in the Federal Government
specifically working on transportation policy. After receiving her
Bachelor's and Master's degrees from Indiana University's School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, Donna joined the U.S. Department of
Transportation as a Program Analyst. Donna built on her background in
transportation to become a budget examiner on transportation issues at
the Office of Management and Budget. From 1993-1999, Donna served as a
staffer on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In
2001, Donna was nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Department
of Transportation.
In 2004, Donna began serving as the Program Manager and Adjunct
Lecturer for Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental
Affairs' Washington Leadership Program. Donna has served as a teacher
and mentor for several students who have interned in my personal office
and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Donna is joined today by her husband, Marcus Peacock, and their
daughters, Mey and Iona. In addition, her sister, Robin Miles-McLean
and niece, Haley Miles McLean, have traveled to be with Donna for this
nomination hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to introduce Donna
McLean to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
______

Prepared Statement of Robert A. Scardelletti, International President,
Transportation Communications International Union

Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye and members of the
Committee. It is my pleasure to present the following views and
observations relative to Amtrak Reform Board members and ask that my
statement be submitted for the record.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit for the
record some facts concerning Amtrak Reform Board members and point out
the failure in their fiduciary responsibility to oversee the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, as the
Committee considers approval for nominees to the Amtrak Board.
My name is Robert A. Scardelletti. I am the International President
of the Transportation Communications International Union, AFL-CIO. TCU
recently merged with the International Association of Machinist and
Aerospace Workers. We represent approximately 8,500 employees working
for Amtrak. Our members work as clerical and reservation employees, On
Board Service employees, Carmen, and Supervisors. In view of this we
have a very great interest in those individuals who are nominated to
serve on the Amtrak Reform Board.
As the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
considers the nominations of Mr. R. Hunter Biden and Ms. Donna R.
McLean to be members of the Amtrak Reform Board, the Transportation
Communications International Union asks that the Members of the
Committee consider the following points.
For the past several years the members of the Amtrak Reform Board
have not acted in the best interests of Amtrak. A standard for any
member of a corporate board is that the person act in the best
interests of the corporation. Members of the Amtrak Reform Board should
be no different.
The current members of the Amtrak Reform Board have consistently
put forth proposals and instituted actions that would cause Amtrak harm
and/or to be forced to declare bankruptcy. They have attempted to
undermine the advantage that Amtrak enjoys in providing passenger
service in the United States. They have supported the sale of Amtrak
infrastructure, in whole or in part, to outsiders with no experience in
operating passenger service. They have undermined the employees of
Amtrak, thereby making it almost impossible for those employees to
perform their jobs in the manner that would bring goodwill to Amtrak.
It is clear that the current members of the Amtrak Reform Board are
not acting as fiduciaries of Amtrak, but as agents of the
Administration whose goal it has been to dismantle Amtrak and
discontinue Amtrak service in whole or in part.
While it is a good thing that the Amtrak Reform Board will have two
new and additional members, this Committee should determine what, if
any, agenda either or both of these individuals would bring to the
Board. Also, it should be determined what position the nominees have
concerning maintaining Amtrak as a national passenger service and a
vital part of the transportation system of our country.
To assist the Members of the Committee to understand problems that
have been caused by current members of the Amtrak Reform Board attached
is a copy of a letter that I sent to Mr. David Laney, Chairman. Mr.
Laney has not responded to this letter.
In considering future nominees for positions on the Amtrak Reform
Board, the Committee should demand no less than the following:

Nominees should have minimum qualifications that includes
familiarity with the rail industry, the issues facing Amtrak
and a commitment to a national passenger rail system;

Nominees should not be appointed until after consultation with
the appropriate Senate and House bipartisan leadership;

Nominees with any possible conflict of interests, including
stakes in other rail carriers or competitors of Amtrak, should
be excluded; and

Nominees should be committed to recognizing the historic
positive contributions of Amtrak's workforce, and to working
cooperatively with Amtrak unions to seek solutions that are in
the mutual interest of the company and its employees, rather
than perpetuating the adversarial, anti-employee policies of
the current Board (such as refusing to settle contracts dating
back to 2000, worsening working conditions, contracting out,
and trying to eliminate railroad retirement, FELA, and other
statutory rights of Amtrak workers.)

The Transportation Communications International Union appreciates
the Committee's consideration of the issues raised herein and in the
attached letter.
______

Attachment

Transportation Communications International Union
Rockville, MD, May 19, 2006
Mr. David Laney,
Chairman,
AMTRAK Board of Directors,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Laney:

It has come to my attention that Amtrak has engaged the services of
McIntosh & Associates to study the operation of the Reservation Sales
Offices and to report on how work currently performed by TCU-
represented reservation, agents might be contracted out.
The reservation agents whose jobs you are targeting for elimination
are among the most professional and productive workers that one could
find anywhere, and the calls which they handle generate millions in
revenue for Amtrak. Yet, I am not at all surprised to learn that you
have drawn targets on their backs. It has become increasingly clear to
me that the Amtrak Board of Directors and senior managers are enamored
with the idea of destroying as many unionized jobs as you possibly can.
Amtrak's Strategic Reform Initiatives report released last year,
and the more recent Fiscal Year 2007 Grant and Legislative Request,
represent a virtual declaration of war on the pensions, wages and job
security of Amtrak's unionized workers.
You have asked Congress to take new employees out of the railroad
retirement system that is healthy and well-funded. You also propose
that Congress amend other laws so as to ensure that private firms have
access to tracks and are able to bid against Amtrak to operate
intercity trains. You even call for Amtrak to turn over its equipment
to competing, successful bidders. In doing so, you are clearly not
acting as directors and managers of Amtrak but as partisan
proselytizers of an ideology of privatization favored by the Bush
Administration. You intend to advance that ideology at the expense of
Amtrak's workers.
In a similar vein, you have asked Congress to amend the Railway
Labor Act to allow labor contracts to expire so that Amtrak could
impose work rule changes or wage cuts on employees without regard to
the collective bargaining process. You claim that this radical
departure from long-standing labor law would ensure an equitable
framework for labor relations among Amtrak and its competitors. That
rationale is absurd and disingenuous. Airlines, commuter rail and
freight rail are governed by the very same rules from which you desire
exemption.
The truth is that you cannot abide balanced collective bargaining.
You seek a new legislated advantage over your employees and their
unions while you continue to refuse to engage in fair bargaining. It is
outrageous that most Amtrak workers, including TCU-represented Carmen
and Supervisors, have gone 6 years without a general wage increase.
Thousands of unionized jobs were eliminated during that same period,
and the remaining employees have been required to do more work with
less help. I am certain that Amtrak's hard-working front line employees
will find it totally reprehensible, as I did, to learn that Amtrak
executives were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses at the
very same time that the company forced unionized employees to sacrifice
so much. I am also certain that they feel, as I do, that you have
absolutely no regard for Amtrak employees or their families.
It has always been difficult to negotiate wage agreements with
Amtrak due to its inadequate and unstable Federal funding. However,
funding levels are no longer the most significant obstacle to fair
wages, secure pensions and decent working conditions for Amtrak
employees. The biggest obstacles today are the Amtrak Board of
Directors and its senior managers.
Your attacks on employees have not stopped with proposed
legislative changes or intransigence at the bargaining table. You have
used all sorts of arguments and distortions to lay blame on Amtrak
employees, while trying to provide cover for the Bush Administration's
utter hostility toward federally-funded rail passenger service. The
Amtrak testimonies to Congress last Fall that compared On-Board Service
workers to fast-food restaurant employees was one of the most pathetic
hatchet jobs I have ever seen. Amtrak management and the Amtrak
Inspector General refused to tell the truth about On-Board workers'
long hours, extremely difficult working conditions, lack of daily or
weekly overtime pay, and their mandatory training in emergency
evacuation, security and passenger safety matters. Through distortions
and half-truths, Amtrak sought to blame the wages of On-Board workers
for Amtrak's food service deficit and to pave the way for contracting
out that service.
More recently, you have created new management positions to perform
work that TCU ARASA Supervisors used to perform even though Amtrak had
previously promised that would never happen. These new management jobs
are costing Amtrak more than the TCU-represented Supervisor positions
which had been eliminated. You are scuttling hundreds of On-Board
Service positions while downgrading food service on the trains. You and
Acting President David Hughes have announced your desires to contract
out mechanical, car cleaning, ticket office, and other work; and now,
management has taken a step to try to replace reservation sales agents.
I do not believe for 1 second that you are acting in the interests
of Amtrak's customers or that you are advancing Amtrak's historic
mission to provide the best possible intercity rail passenger service
for America. You and other Board members were appointed by President
Bush who has repeatedly tried to kill Amtrak and who proposed zero
funding for Fiscal Year 2006 so as to accomplish exactly that. When
Amtrak's former CEO spoke out last year against the Board's attempts to
lay the ground work for dismantling Amtrak, you fired him. The current
Members of the Board have been acting more like Amtrak gravediggers
than as directors of Amtrak or guardians of America's rail passenger
service.
TCU represents more than 8,500 employees at Amtrak who perform work
as Carmen, Clerical and Station workers, Reservation Agents,
Supervisors and On-Board Service workers. Most of our members are
protected against the contracting out of their jobs, and it would be a
grave mistake for Amtrak to breach those protections. If you and the
other Members of the Board and top managers truly wanted Amtrak to
succeed, you would be rewarding employees for the service they have
provided to Amtrak passengers under incredibly difficult and often
demoralizing conditions. Our members have made countless sacrifices to
keep Amtrak going in the face of severe budget restrictions, threatened
bankruptcy and the dismantling of the national system, all the while
earning less than their counterparts who work for commuter rail service
agencies and freight railroads. Our members have routinely helped to
mobilize voters to ask Congress to appropriate the moneys needed to
maintain or increase Amtrak service. And TCU itself has expended
considerable resources to press Congress to provide Amtrak with
sufficient funding for operations and long term capital investment.
TCU members have been working on board, repairing cars, selling
tickets, hoisting baggage, directing trains, supervising road gangs and
more, long before you or the other Board Members were appointed to
carry out the White House agenda. TCU will do everything in its power
to ensure that our members continue to do that work long into the
future.
Very truly yours,
Robert A. Scardelletti,
International President.

cc: Norman Mineta, Board Member; Floyd Hall, Board Member;
Enrique Sosa, Board Member; David Hughes, Acting President; TCU
representatives at Amtrak.
______

Prepared Statement of Hans Ephraimson-Abt, Spokesman,
Air Crash Victims Families Group

We welcome the appointment of Andrew B. Steinberg as Assistant
Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs and
hope that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
proceeds to recommend to the full Senate to give its advice and consent
as early as possible. The absence of a Permanent Assistance Secretary
with only an acting office holder in place--however qualified he might
be--has slowed down--or even detracted the resolution of some of the
important decisions both in the domestic and in the international
arena.
By education and career background, we hope soon to be, Assistant
Secretary Steinberg brings experience and knowledge from his time as
General Counsel at the Federal Aviation Agency. The combination of DOT
Secretary Jeffrey N. Shane, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, NTSB
Chairman Mark Rosenker and Andrew Steinberg as DOT Assistant Secretary
for Aviation and International Affairs would make a strong team--
already used to work together.
The nominee's relations and experiences both in his career and in
his family relate apparently to the airlines, the manufacturers and to
the Internet related modernized tourist industries. This gave the
nominee the opportunity and exposure to work for and with very pro
active personalities in the civil aviation field like at American
Airlines: Bob Crandell and Anne McNamara as well as Jeffrey Katz--who
became later the CEO of Swissair--at the times of the Swissair 111
tragedy.
In his new position the nominee will be faced to consider also the
needs of the general public both in the domestic and in the
international arena--hopefully pro actively and by harmonization among
the interests of all the stake holders.
As a consequence of a series of major domestic and international
aviation tragedies that occurred between 1983 and 1996, with the
encouragement of DOT Secretaries Samuel Skinner, Federico Pena and
Rodney E. Slate as well as then Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Shane and
the former Deputy Assistant Secretary Patrick Murphy--an informal
coalition of the stakeholders with the Public's participation made it
possible to develop, negotiate, conclude, ratify and implement together
important rules and treaties such as the ``Montreal Convention'' of
1999 replacing the antiquated ``Warsaw Convention'' of 1929, the
modernization of the 1920 ``Death On The High Seas Act in 2000, the
1996/1997 ``Aviation Disaster Family Assistant Act'' and the ``Foreign
Carrier Family Support Act of 1997''--both of which would have never
been passed without the active support of Committee Chairman Ted
Stevens and co-Chairman Daniel Inouye--the ICAO ``Guidance on
Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families'' of 2001--
and many other initiatives, last but not least the resolution of the
aftermath of September 11, 2001.
Regretfully, lately this very useful and productive inter
relationship among the stakeholders themselves and the Government has
considerably weakened, as is evidenced by the recent decision of the
Department of Transportation allowing the air carriers their requested
very limited implementation of the 1999 Montreal Convention, with only
selective international harmonization--at the same time essentially
ignoring the very valid public's comments and input. The nominee may
find it useful to address early on the benefits which come from
cooperative participation of all stakeholders and increased
harmonization in the international field.
Although Michael Jennison a senior legal Counselor of the Federal
Aviation Administration is the Rapporteur of a Special Group at the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to modernize the
Treaty of Rome (Damages caused by foreign aircraft on the ground) the
United States has so far not officially participated in this very
important initiative, which causes some concern in the international
community.
The full implementation by DOT of the 1999 ``Montreal Convention''
should also be high on Secretary Steinberg's agenda, as well as the
modernized rules and regulations of ETOPS (Extended Transocean and
Transpolar flights) which are urgently needed in view of the impending
introduction of longer range as well as larger planes with increased
passenger capacity.
In the person of Andrew B. Steinberg who is also very well
respected in the international community, the Department of
Transportation would be enriched by a knowledgeable person, moving over
from his position as the Chief Counsel for the Federal Aviation
Administration.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is one of the least
heralded, yet an eminently important and cost effective, independent
agency respected internationally, responsible to Congress.
To function properly it needs a permanent leadership.
Mark Rosenker has been a most effective Vice Chairman and Acting
Chairman for the last 3 years. Under rather difficult circumstances he
has been and is a most able administrator.
For some time now the NTSB has gone through the process of a
complete turnover of its leadership. It about time that it has a again
a permanent Chairman.
We not only supported the confirmation of Mark Rosenker as Chairman
of the NTSB--but respectfully encourage the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation to vote early on the nomination, so that the
full Senate is able to give his appointment its prompt Advice and
Consent.
In the last years we have been most fortunate that no major
domestic Civil aviation accident has occurred. Yet almost daily the
NTSB is faced with Aviation and surface incidents, not only in the
United States. Because American aircraft are used worldwide the NTSB is
also involved in its accident investigations either as observer, or as
advisor, or as investigator by invitation.
This year is the tenth anniversary when your Committee approved the
``Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996,'' and one year later
the ``Foreign Carrier Family Support Act of 1997.'' Your Chairman
Senator Ted Stevens before whom we were privileged to testify at that
time and your Co-Chairman, Senator Daniel Inoue were much appreciated
supporters of the legislation.
Since then the NTSB has also become a much respected post incident
coordinator for crisis management and family care.
Based on the NTSB families affairs program, the International Civil
Aviation Agency (ICAO) approved Circular 285 the ``Guidance On
Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and Their Families'' in 2001.
This initiative was introduced at a plenary ICAO meeting in Chicago, in
1998 by then NTSB Chairman James E. Hall.
In addition the NTSB has established a teaching academy which in
the short time of its existence has established already a global
reputation for effectiveness and excellence, despite its limited means.
No agency of the quality and dedication of the NTSB can operate
effectively without adequate staffing and financing. As Hurricane
Katrina has taught us, we all have to be prepared in advance for those
calamities to happen. We therefore suggest that the Senate does not
only confirm speedily Mark Rosenker as Chairman of the NTSB, but also
provide him with the means to properly staff, finance the operations of
the NTSB and complete the nomination process for the other two openings
of the Board, as fast as possible.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Donna R. McLean

Question 1. Ms. McLean, you come highly recommended based on your
past experiences. You have an opportunity to step in, be creative, and
really help our Nation's passenger rail system. You know this is not an
easy job and are well prepared to face the challenges ahead. How you
will approach the problems facing Amtrak, from the lack of funding to
the need to make major investments and reduce costs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would see my role as an Amtrak Board member
to cover both short term and long term issues. In the short term, I
would be interested in exploring with the Amtrak professional staff
certain changes that could both increase revenue and reduce costs.
These short term actions would not alter rail service. These short term
actions would simply be an attempt to improve business operations;
better understand the Federal funding process; and incorporate
technology improvements in Amtrak's service. For instance, if
confirmed, I would examine with Amtrak's professional staff why Amtrak
tickets can only be purchased on Amtrak's website and not any other
transportation travel Internet site. I find it interesting that
Travelocity offers Canadian and European train tickets and not Amtrak
tickets.
The other role of the Board is to look at the long term needs of
Amtrak. Unfortunately, financial decisions made by Amtrak years ago
have resulted in the company having very few assets. In addition,
Amtrak is approximately $3 billion in debt. It is my understanding that
Amtrak is currently looking at its capital needs, including a
comprehensive look at its needed investments. If confirmed, I look
forward to seeing that report to better understand the long term needs
of Amtrak, its current debt, and helping to map out a better future for
our country's intercity passenger rail system.

Question 2. This Committee has worked hard on a reauthorization
plan for Amtrak, favorably reporting S. 1516, sponsored by Senators
Lott and Lautenberg, Stevens, Hutchison and myself last year. Are you
familiar with this proposal and do you have comments regarding it?
Answer. Yes. I have read the bill and am interested in several
sections of the bill. Specifically, if I am to be confirmed, I would
like to explore the requirements for a new financial and cost
accounting system; calls for improved metrics; and exploring the
restructuring of Amtrak's current debt. While the bill is still under
debate, there are several interesting ideas that Amtrak could begin to
explore right away.

Question 3. What do you believe the Federal Government's role
should be in the financing of Amtrak's capital and operating needs?
What role should the states and the private sector have?
Answer. The Federal Government has been supporting Amtrak since its
establishment. Several times there have been attempts to make Amtrak
``self sufficient.'' Unfortunately, those efforts have failed. However,
I think that there are several ways that Amtrak could improve its
business--specific actions were included in your Committee's bill, S.
1516. I believe the Board's role is to make sure that Amtrak is taking
advantage of every efficiency gain possible, while maintaining service
to its clients. If confirmed, I would work with Amtrak to explore those
efficiency options. If those efficiency options meant that a smaller
government grant could be provided, then I would believe the Board was
doing its job.
I believe that states are supportive of intercity passenger rail
systems and should maintain their support, as they do with all modes of
transportation. A healthy intercity passenger rail service is important
to many states and their support is necessary to sustain a robust
system in the long term. In regards to your question on the role of the
private sector, believe that this relationship has not been fully
explored for intercity passenger rail. Creative arrangements between
the commercial sector, the public sector, and Amtrak should be
considered, as they have been in many other transportation modes.

Question 4. Do you support Amtrak's operation of a comprehensive
national system or do you believe Amtrak should focus on developing
short distance corridors that connect city pairs in densely populated
regions? Or should Amtrak continue to develop both?
Answer. I believe that this country should have a robust intercity
passenger rail system. Most other transportation modes operate
successfully, in part, because they are based on a national feeder
system. Certainly the aviation system and the highway system are based
on feeder structures. One area where we could improve our Nation's
transportation system is to better incorporate our different
transportation modes as we examine potential feeder systems. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with Amtrak on their national
system and improving service for their customers.

Question 5. One of the immediate issues facing Amtrak is
appropriations for the coming year. Amtrak requested approximately $1.6
billion in capital and operating funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. The
Administration requested only $900 million, which former Amtrak
President David Gunn consistently stated was a shutdown number when the
Administration proposed such funding levels in previous years. If
history is a guide, Amtrak will probably not get the $1.6 billion it
says it needs. As an Amtrak Board member, where will you recommend
Amtrak should focus its limited funds next year?
Answer. Unfortunately, Amtrak's professional staff is accustomed to
beginning its Fiscal Year with limited resources. If confirmed, I would
first discuss the proposed options with the professional staff. I would
also explore taking advantage of some short-term efficiency
improvements, as I have already discussed and which appear in your
Committee's bill (S. 1516). I would also make sure that the
infrastructure study Amtrak is currently undertaking is completed so
that the information can be used to better understand the needs for
Fiscal Year 2008.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
John H. Hill

Question 1. Mr. Hill, highway safety is a top priority for all of
us. Although in 1999 the Department set a goal of reducing truck
fatalities by 50 percent by 2008, it does not appear likely that this
goal will be achieved under present condition. Truck fatalities
increased from 5,190 in 2004 to 5,226 in 2005. Please give us your
blueprint for attacking this problem, including the first actions you
would take as Administrator to reduce motor carrier crash deaths and
injuries. What can the Congress do to make the most immediate
improvements in truck safety?
Answer. As I mentioned at my confirmation hearing, my extended
background in law enforcement has shown me that highway safety is built
on good rules coupled with strong enforcement. My first actions as
Administrator, if confirmed, would be to make sure that the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) relied on data-driven
regulations to guide our work. For example, the recently released Large
Truck Crash Causation Study points out the critical role of the driver
in crashes. I will ensure that FMCSA applies this important data to
take effective and near-term actions on important initiatives focused
on drivers. This means implementing the important new provisions of
SAFETEA-LU with respect to the medical status of drivers: moving ahead
with our rulemaking on diabetes, creating the National Registry of
Medical Examiners, and supporting the work of our newly established
Medical Review Board in updating all of our physical qualification
standards for commercial drivers. FMCSA will complete ongoing work
affecting drivers directly, such as our rulemaking on merging medical
information with commercial driver's license files and regulations
concerning electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs).
With respect to enforcement, FMCSA's Comprehensive Safety Analysis
(CSA) 2010 project will re-engineer how we interact with drivers and
carriers to ensure that FMCSA can target more of its regulated
community to promote compliance. In addition, more effective oversight
of our New Entrant program will ensure that funds are appropriately
deployed so that all new motor carriers receive a strengthened and more
enforcement-oriented new entrant audit within 18 months of beginning
operations. My most immediate plans include focus on both improved
standards and effective compliance. Congress has given us an
appropriate set of tools in SAFETEA-LU to pursue further reductions in
the number of highway deaths and injuries involving trucks and buses.
By fully funding our SAFETEA-LU authorization levels, Congress also
continues to improve truck safety.

Question 2. Mr. Hill, you have a long career in highway safety and
have served at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
now for several years. The agency's highest priority, as the law
requires, is improving truck safety. Some have suggested that the
agency, at times, is more concerned with the economic health of the
industry rather than improving truck safety. As Administrator, will you
pursue safety as the highest priority in all agency actions, even if it
means imposing additional costs and burdens on the trucking industry?
Answer. If confirmed by the Senate, I am committed to pursuing the
preeminent safety mission of FMCSA: to reduce highway crashes, injuries
and fatalities involving trucks and buses. To this end, the Agency
undertakes research, conducts enforcement activities, distributes
grants to our State partners, cooperates with stakeholders, and
promulgates safety regulations. When we embark on a regulatory project,
as directed by a Congressional mandate, National Transportation Safety
Board recommendation, or FMCSA research, improving safety is always our
highest priority. For example, FMCSA maintains physical standards for
drivers, standards for securing cargo, recordkeeping requirements for
carriers, licensing standards, and other regulations that impose costs
and burdens on drivers, carriers and States. Like most Federal
agencies, FMCSA is required by law to take into account cost/benefit
considerations when it engages in rulemaking. Good safety regulations
can be cost beneficial. As Administrator, I would work to ensure that
FMCSA's safety actions are fair, effective, consistent, and transparent
so all our stakeholders, including Congress, can clearly see our
primary focus on improving highway safety and understand when and why
our actions may impose costs and burdens on the trucking industry and
others.

Question 3. There are now some 700,000 motor carriers registered
with FMCSA. Yet, the agency is conducting only 7,000 to 10,000 safety
compliance reviews each year, equaling only a little more than one
percent of the registered carriers. How can compliance reviews, which
are at the heart of the Federal safety regulatory process, be regarded
as a serious deterrent to bad safety management practices or regulatory
violations when such a small number of reviews are conducted?
Answer. FMCSA's mission is to reduce the number of injuries and
fatalities associated with commercial motor vehicle crashes. To achieve
this, FMCSA undertakes a number of enforcement activities to ensure
compliance with the safety regulations. Through performance information
collected on carriers and drivers, the FMCSA compliance review program
focuses on those carriers posing the highest risk to safety as measured
by the Agency's Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat). SafeStat
is an automated motor carrier safety analysis system. SafeStat uses
carrier safety data such as roadside inspections, out of service
violations, past enforcement history, and crash data to determine the
level of risk posed by the carriers.
Even with increased demands on FMCSA resources, the number of
compliance reviews has remained steady over the past few years as FMCSA
has expanded the number and types of activities conducted. These
activities include onsite visits to hazardous materials carriers to
assess security vulnerabilities, increased reviews of passenger
carriers, and conducting safety audits on new entrant carriers. So
while we are auditing a small percentage of all carriers, we are
performing compliance reviews on the most serious safety offenders
within the industry. FMCSA recognizes the need to reach more carriers
to ensure they comply with the safety regulations and has initiated the
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) program to develop more
efficient and effective use of Agency resources to assess the safety of
more than 10,000 carriers per year. Together with our State law
enforcement partners, we are developing significant revisions to our
safety regulatory process through CSA 2010. Additionally, I am strongly
encouraging States to add to their roadside inspection activities by
also completing compliance reviews (CRs). FMCSA has seen the number of
CRs performed by State personnel increase from 3,745 in FY 2004 to
4,593 in FY 2005. There have already been 2,435 during the first 6
months of FY 2006.

Question 4. FMCSA's system for detecting which motor carriers are
high safety risks has been found to be seriously flawed. The primary
method relies on calculations performed in the Safety Status
Measurement System, usually called ``SafeStat.'' The agency currently
has an open docket on improving SafeStat that was published in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2006.
What specific actions will you take to correct the deficiencies
identified in SafeStat discussed in the present Federal Register notice
to guide public comment? Please provide the Committee with a date by
which you believe all of the deficiencies identified by GAO and the IG
will be addressed and corrected so that SafeStat will be useful in
identifying dangerous motor carriers?
Answer. While FMCSA continually works to improve the effectiveness
of SafeStat, the system is an efficient, effective and useful tool for
identifying high-risk motor carriers. In fact, the 2004 Office of
Inspector General (OIG) report noted that compliance review results
support the ability of SafeStat to identify high risk carriers. In
essence, the OIG report indicated that the higher a carrier's SafeStat
score was before a compliance review was conducted, the greater the
likelihood the compliance review would result in a less-than-
satisfactory safety rating.
Also, FMCSA's first effectiveness study of SafeStat yielded strong
evidence to support the fact that carriers identified as high-risk by
SafeStat, particularly those with high Accident Safety Evaluation Area
(SEA) scores, are significantly more likely to be involved in a
disproportionate number of future crashes. The 2004 OIG report
indicated that ``this analysis is convincing'' and further suggested
that FMCSA update the analysis. In late 2004, FMCSA updated this
analysis and the findings were similar. Specifically, motor carriers
identified as high-risk by SafeStat had a post-identification crash
rate 112 percent higher than those carriers that had sufficient data to
be evaluated but were not identified as high-risk.
The OIG and GAO reports primarily identified limitations in the
underlying data used by SafeSat, especially the completeness and
timeliness of crash data reported to FMCSA by the States, and made
recommendations intended to improve the data rather than the SafeStat
methodology and algorithm itself. The FMCSA is pleased to report that
we have implemented a number of data quality initiatives in response to
the OIG and GAO reports that have already resulted in improvements.
FMCSA is well aware that improving data quality requires a long-term
and sustained effort and continues to build upon its recent successes
to improve the State reporting of large truck crash and roadside
inspection data. Congress recognized the importance of improving data
quality by recently authorizing $11 million through FY 2009 to be used
for safety data improvement grants and a safety data improvement
program with the States.
FMCSA is also striving to improve the SafeStat algorithm itself.
The May 3, 2006, Federal Register Notice referred to in the question
proposes enhancements to the SafeStat algorithm that we believe will
make SafeStat even more effective. The proposed improvements would:

Simplify the Accident SEA;

Increase the number of traffic violations considered by
SafeStat in the calculation of driver SEA scores;

Increase the number of vehicle out-of-service violations
considered by SafeStat in the calculation of the vehicle SEA;
and

Shorten the data exposure time period considered by SafeStat
from 30 months to 24 months.

The Federal Register Notice is itself a response to an OIG
recommendation to ``establish processes for soliciting public comment
on proposed changes in SafeStat calculations, to include those changes,
if any, resulting from the revised effectiveness study.'' Detailed
information on these proposed changes can be found at http://
ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafeStat/enhancements.asp. The FMCSA expects to
implement changes before the end of calendar year 2006.

Question 5. There are still numerous overdue regulatory actions,
reports, and pilot programs that FMCSA has either not undertaken or has
left unfinished stretching back for more than 15 years.
Please provide the Committee with a list of overdue and delayed
regulatory actions, those mandated by Congress and those included in
your semi-annual regulatory agenda as well as deadlines for initiation
and completion.
Answer.

Overdue and Delayed Rulemakings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled
Title Initiation Completion Date of Statute
Date Next Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical 07/15/1993 Notice of Proposed Motor Carrier
Qualification Rulemaking 11/06 Safety
Requirements As Improvement Act
Part Of The CDL
Process \1\
Railroad-Highway 08/16/1994 Notice of Proposed Hazardous
Grade Crossing Rulemaking 09/07 Materials
Safety \2\ Transportation
Authorization Act
Hours of Service 08/26/1994 Final Rule 10/06 Hazardous
of Drivers; Materials
Supporting Transportation
Documents \3\ Authorization Act
Unified 01/01/1996 Supplemental Interstate
Registration Notice of Commerce
System (Includes Proposed Commission
several sections Rulemaking 06/07 Termination Act &
changed by Safe,
SAFETEA-LU) \4\ Accountable,
Flexible,
Efficient
Transportation
Equity Act: A
Legacy For Users
Brokers of 05/12/2003 Notice of Proposed Safe, Accountable,
Household Goods Rulemaking 10/06 Flexible,
Transportation by Efficient
Motor Vehicle Transportation
Equity Act: A
Legacy For Users
Inspection, 02/18/2004 Notice of Proposed Safe, Accountable,
Repair, and Rulemaking 10/06 Flexible,
Maintenance of Efficient
Intermodal Transportation
Container Chassis Equity Act: A
\5\ Legacy For Users
Electronic On- 07/22/05 Notice of Proposed Interstate
Board Recorders Rulemaking 10/06 Commerce
for Hours-Of- Commission
Service Termination Act
Compliance
National Registry 10/24/05 Notice of Proposed Safe, Accountable,
of Certified Rulemaking 11/06 Flexible,
Medical Examiners Efficient
Transportation
Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``Report on Department of Transportation Significant Rules''
dated July 2006. This report is available to the public from the
Department's website and provides the most current information on the
schedule of rules.
\1\ This rule had no statutory deadline; is in final clearance; and will
align with our enhanced medical program.
\2\ This rule had a 1995 statutory deadline and was delayed as the
initial NPRM resulted in exceedingly high costs and was overly broad.
A new rulemaking reflecting current data is underway.
\3\ This rule had a 1996 statutory deadline and is at the Office of
Management and Budget for final review.
\4\ As a result of SAFETEA-LU, the Agency needs to supplement its 2005
NPRM. An ANPRM was published in 1996.
\5\ SAFETEA-LU required a final rule within one year of enactment.

Question 6. FMCSA has just issued its final report on the Large
Truck Crash Causation Study in March. Yet, the agency to date has
basically failed to acknowledge any of the criticisms or incorporate
almost any of the suggestions documented in reports from the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, from
the Centers for Disease Control, and national truck safety
organizations that were directed a few years ago to evaluate the LTCCS.
What specific actions are you taking in response to the criticisms to
the Bus Crash Causation Study that you are currently conducting?
Answer. FMCSA issued a report to Congress in March on the initial
findings from the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS). This
report should not be considered a final report because FMCSA and other
research organizations are continuing to conduct additional analyses of
specific crash factors over the next several years using the LTCCS
database. In CY 2000, FMCSA contracted with the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences to review the LTCCS
(section 224 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
required FMCSA to consult with persons with expertise on crash
causation, commercial vehicles, drivers, carriers, Federal and State
highway safety programs, and research methods and statistical
analysis). During that three-year review, FMCSA made a number of
changes to the data collection forms and data collection protocols that
incorporated the TRB Committee's input. While recognizing that a survey
of this kind has inherent limitations, both the TRB Committee and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized that the LTCCS
would be an important data resource on truck crash causes.
Specifically, the TRB recognized the LTCCS as a ``landmark undertaking
of great potential importance to highway safety.'' FMCSA plans to use
the LTCCS to formulate hypotheses for the conduct of additional in-
depth studies to examine certain key causation factors that cannot be
adequately addressed with the current dataset.
The study approach for the LTCCS and the Bus Crash Causation Study
(BCCS) are very different. Serious crashes involving interstate regular
route and charter bus service constitute only about 1 percent of the
commercial motor vehicle crashes for which FMCSA has responsibility.
Since these types of bus crashes are so rare, it is impossible to
obtain a nationally representative sample of motorcoach crashes in a
useful timeframe. FMCSA decided to focus bus study data collection in
New Jersey, which has a high volume of motorcoach travel and a large
number of smaller buses that operate in the congested Northeast corner
of the State. Many of the data collection protocols for the BCCS are
similar to the LTCCS. However, in the BCCS, a trained crash
investigator and a State commercial vehicle inspector arrive at the
crash scene as soon after the crash as is possible. The investigator
collects numerous data items and the State inspector conducts a North
American Standard Level 1 inspection on the involved vehicle to
determine if any vehicle factors contributed to the crash. The data are
coded by trained contractor staff, reviewed by outside crash experts,
and entered into an electronic database. FMCSA did consider the TRB,
CDC, and other organizations' comments on the LTCCS and have
incorporated several changes into the BCCS. For example, as a result of
the comments, FMCSA reduced the number of data elements collected in
the BCCS by eliminating those that we determined had no relationship to
pre-crash factors, we placed increased emphasis on crash notification,
and we simplified the resulting database that will be produced.

Question 7. The U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a
detailed report in December 2005 that found that FMCSA's administration
of MCSAP was inadequate, and that several states had not complied with
all of their obligations under the program, including failures of
timely and accurate data collection and transmission to FMCSA. GAO also
found that FMCSA had no meaningful and reliable quantitative measures
of how well or badly states were performing with the use of MCSAP
funds, and that the agency has not appropriately monitored the
development of state safety plans for receiving Federal funds. This
includes a failure of FMCSA to have completed its own internal MCSAP
oversight reviews for the past 3 years. What are you doing to remedy
these mistakes and ensure that MCSAP is awarding funds properly and in
a timely manner to get measurable motor carrier safety payoffs?
Answer. In the spring of 2006, FMCSA sent a planning memorandum to
the States in order to provide direction and priority areas to address
in their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP). State agencies receive
funding only after submitting an approved CVSP demonstrating a
performance-based approach to improving CMV safety reflecting the
priorities established in the planning memorandum. CVSPs are required
to be completed each year and must contain an evaluation of the
previous year's activities and any problems encountered. Problems
identified as a result of those CVSP activities should be addressed as
new State-specific objectives. The evaluation should discuss problems
addressed; the strategies, activities, and effort applied; performance
measures; modifications that were necessary; and outcomes. Once an
objective has been accomplished and the evaluation completed, the
objective will no longer appear in the CVSP. Each CVSP and the safety
activities proposed must be developed based on quality data,
implemented as planned, continually reviewed and adjusted according to
in-process results, and thoroughly evaluated annually. Based upon the
evaluation results, subsequent CVSP activities are modified and
directed toward effective safety strategies.
Additionally, FMCSA is in the process of implementing a National
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Management and
Performance Review Program. The MCSAP Review Program is a national
standardized process to evaluate State compliance with related Federal
MCSAP requirements and to assess the State's commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) safety program's overall performance. The program is composed of
three review elements:

1. Regulatory review to determine if the State's laws,
regulations, administrative procedures, and operational
practices conform to MCSAP regulations, policies and
procedures, to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

2. Financial review to determine the State's compliance with
the conditions of FMCSA grant agreements, Federal regulations,
and applicable Office of Management and Budget circulars. This
portion of the review process is currently given special
emphasis to verify appropriate expenditures of Federal funds
and to track specific MCSAP grant activities.

3. Safety and Program Performance review to assess the State's
safety planning and CMV safety activities including the State's
formulation of a performance-based Commercial Vehicle Safety
Plan through analysis of safety data.

There have been four MCSAP Reviews (Montana, Mississippi, West
Virginia, and Ohio) performed to date. FMCSA is currently in the
process of procuring a contractor to provide support for the MCSAP
Review Program. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded by
the end of this Fiscal Year so that additional reviews can begin in FY
2007.
This effort will increase the effectiveness of State CMV safety
programs by providing FMCSA information that will allow the Agency to
assist the States in focusing on improving their safety performance and
planning activities. The MCSAP Review Program will also provide
feedback to the State to facilitate the exchange of ideas, promote
operational efficiency, and promote Federal/State cooperation and
partnership in making program improvements and achieving greater
benefits to reduce CMV-related fatalities and injuries.
Additionally, FMCSA has created an internal workgroup tasked with
developing revised uniform guidelines for the administration of MCSAP
to ensure consistent grant oversight and program management procedures
Agency-wide. These guidelines will be included in the Agency's Field
Operations Training Manual (FOTM). It is anticipated that the
administrative guidelines will be ready for inclusion in the FOTM by
January, 2007.

Question 8. Congress first required the Secretary to deal with
training standards for entry-level truck drivers in 1991. Although an
agency contracted Adequacy Report on driver training documented the
need for entry-level skills training, and the independent Model
Curriculum made numerous recommendations, the final rule issued by
FMCSA in 2004 addressed only four marginal areas and did not include a
requirement for training in the skills necessary to safely operate a
large truck. For this reason, when the agency was sued in Federal court
the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision remanding the
issue to the agency for further action. When does the agency plan to
act to respond to the court's decision and opinion? Will you include a
proposal for actual on the road training as part of this rule?
Answer. FMCSA intends to initiate a rulemaking in response to the
court's decision in late 2006 or early 2007. Research efforts currently
underway, both by FMCSA and by major stakeholders, are likely to
provide important information relevant to determining mandated behind-
the-wheel training. These research projects will be completed in 2006.
FMCSA believes it is essential to complete this and other research
prior to initiating the new driver training rule.
When FMCSA initiates the entry-level driver training rulemaking,
the Agency will describe in detail its efforts to gather accurate and
useful data concerning driver training and request public comment about
entry-level driver training. It is too early in the rulemaking process
to discuss the scope of the forthcoming rulemaking notice. However, the
Agency will consider the most up-to-date research and safety data in
developing a regulatory approach to address the court's decision, as
well as in proposing a rule that reflects safety benefits.

Question 9. FMCSA indicates that it intends to increase emphasis on
driver safety and decrease emphasis on vehicle condition because of
findings in the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) that the
overwhelming reason for crashes is driver error, not failures of
vehicle systems. However, the final LTCCS report contains a table
showing that of the trucks in the study sample that were investigated
following a crash, 29.4 percent of them had suffered some form of brake
failure. This percentage of bad brakes on the crash-involved trucks is
deeply troubling and a strong indication that FMCSA should in fact
increase its oversight and enforcement emphasis on ensuring that large
trucks have all operating systems necessary for safe travel in good
condition and do not have any dangerous mechanical problems. Why are
you de-emphasizing inspecting trucks for mechanical and physical
condition?
Answer. FMCSA's emphasis on driver safety performance is part of a
comprehensive strategy to use the best-available data on heavy truck
and bus safety to manage our enforcement resources in the most
effective manner possible to reduce fatalities and injuries on the
Nation's highways. There has been a steady decrease in the rate of
fatal crashes involving CMVs since national statistics were collected.
Still, the number of people killed in crashes involving CMVs remains
too high (5,190 in 2004, the last year reported). Large trucks remain
over-represented as a total of all fatal crashes--they represent a
small fraction of registered motor vehicles but they are involved in 12
percent of fatal crashes on the Nation's highways.
Recent studies, including FMCSA's LTCCS, continue to emphasize the
part that drivers play in crash causation and avoidance. In the LTCCS,
CMV driver action or inaction was determined to be the ``critical
reason'' for the crash in 87 percent of the crashes where the primary
cause of the crash was attributed to the CMV. We believe that given
this data, it is appropriate to focus much more attention on CMV
drivers and to put into place improved driver-related programs and
regulations to significantly decrease the number of fatalities and
injuries caused by truck and bus crashes.
With regard to the LTCCS data concerning brakes, the report
indicates that the condition of the brakes was determined to be an
``associated factor'' in 29.4 percent of crashes. Associated factors
are selected from a broad range of items that contribute to the risk of
having a crash. However, no judgment was made as to whether these
factors contributed to a particular crash, just whether it was present.
``Brakes failed'' was coded as a critical reason in only 1 percent of
crashes while ``degraded braking capacity'' was coded as the critical
reason in 3 percent of crashes. Therefore, the LTCCS data indicate that
driver action or inaction played a greater role in crash causation than
the condition of the brakes on the CMV.
While FMCSA is placing a greater emphasis on driver safety
performance, the Agency and its State partners will continue to conduct
roadside inspections to identify and remove from operation unsafe
drivers and vehicles. The roadside inspection program is an important
part of our safety strategy and a valuable tool for deterring
violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Vehicle
inspections will remain a vital part of promoting highway safety.

Question 10. A new Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) plan for the
Nation's trucking industry has been mandated by SAFETEA-LU to replace
the Single State Registration System which is repealed by the same law
on January 1, 2007. SAFETEA-LU also establishes a new Board of
Directors who will be responsible for issuing rules and regulations for
the states to implement the UCR, including a new carrier fee structure
that will provide SSRS replacement revenue for the states.
I am informed by State officials that unless FMCSA completes its
process by September the state agencies responsible for UCR will have a
very difficult time implementing their program by January 1, 2007,
resulting in a loss of revenue. Do you expect the UCR Board to complete
its work in time for the states to fully implement the plan by January
1, 2007 so that a revenue shortfall for the states will be avoided?
Answer. No, we do not expect the UCR Board to complete its work in
time for States to fully implement the plan by January 1, 2007. FMCSA
established the Board of Directors responsible for developing the UCR
plan and agreement on May 12, 2006. The Board of Directors held its
first meeting on June 13, 2006. During the meeting, the Board of
Directors adopted a unanimous resolution that there should be an
extension of the repeal of the Single State Registration System (SSRS)
for an additional year until January 1, 2008, in order to provide
sufficient time to develop and implement the UCR plan and agreement.
Issues listed by the Board of Directors that require the extension
include:

A UCR Agreement must be developed;

States must pass enabling legislation (in States where
needed);

States' UCR Plans must be developed and approved;

SSRS data necessary to determine fees under the UCR must be
collected;

New motor carrier industry participants must be educated,
which will be required to meet the UCR requirements.

Question 11. Do you think SAFETEA-LU's timetable of 12 months
within which to complete the UCR plan is enough time? If not, would you
support an extension of the January 1, 2007, deadline to give the
states enough time to implement the plan?
Answer. No, FMCSA does not believe a timetable of 12 months to
complete the UCR plan is enough time. FMCSA's experience in the 1990s
demonstrated that the complexities involved when working with the
States toward establishing the International Registration Plan (IRP)
and the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) were numerous and
challenging. The development of the IRP and IFTA agreements took nearly
3 years to complete.
Similar to the IRP and IFTA agreements, the development of the UCR
plan will require the Board of Directors and the States to: (1) design
a proposed plan that meets all functional requirements, and (2)
identify and resolve significant State-specific operational,
administrative and funding issues associated with implementing the
plan. The design and issue resolution process, while time-consuming, is
critical to building a strong State consensus for an effective and
uniform agreement that all States can accept and successfully
implement. A time extension for the UCR deadline would be warranted.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Andrew B. Steinberg

Question 1. Two hundred and seventy-one Members of the House voted
against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the actions it
has taken to unilaterally impose the agency's last best contract offer
on the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). The vote
failed by a mere eight votes to obtain the two-thirds needed to pass on
the House suspension calendar. While the FAA may see it as a
``victory,'' it does not bode well for their actions. You played a key
role in managing the FAA, serving as its Chief Counsel. With the
Administration now moving forward to implement its last-best contract
offer on NATCA, I am concerned that the collective bargaining process
has been diminished and that this option contributes to an already
stressful atmosphere that is not conducive to safety. Did you recommend
or counsel that sending the FAA contracts to the Congress for
resolution was the best way to resolve this contract dispute?
Answer. I have never believed that impasse was the best way--or
even a desirable way--to resolve the dispute, nor do I view the actual
resolution of this dispute as a ``victory.'' The goal going into any
kind of negotiation, particularly collective bargaining, is to obtain
an agreement, and during my career I have prided myself on my ability
to facilitate settlements even in the most contentious of situations.
In advising the Administrator and our negotiators on the statutory
framework for the negotiations, therefore, I viewed a voluntary
agreement as the best way to achieve our primary goal. Thus, I
consistently recommended to my clients that we pursue every reasonable
possibility of obtaining an agreement.
While the optimal outcome would have been a voluntary agreement
with NATCA, and the parties resolved many work rules, fundamental
economic issues separated them. In the end, in my judgment, a complete
agreement with NATCA became impossible because of the huge gap between
the parties on new hire pay scales and automatic pay hikes. But I was
as disappointed as anyone that an agreement was not reached.

Question 2. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 final Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations package stripped out a provision that would have stopped
the Department of Transportation (DOT) from issuing a final rule that
would allow foreign control of U.S. air carriers. We confronted this
problem with the Dubai Ports issue fairly recently. Yet, the Department
somehow parsed the words ``actual control'' in a way that would allow
foreign investors to take effective control over the economic decisions
of a U.S. air carrier. You are a lawyer by trade, and worked for a
number of large corporations. Please explain how companies will
overcome the complex corporate governance challenges they will face if
primary corporate activities are controlled by a foreign entity,
including key economic decisions like aircraft purchases, while
security and safety would be segmented off?
Answer. I have not been closely involved in the formulation of the
proposed rule you refer to. However, I will attempt to answer your
questions on this topic to the best of my knowledge, offering my
perspective and past experience as a lawyer at a major airline and as
general counsel and corporate secretary in the private sector. Also, as
I am sure you can appreciate, because my pending nomination subjects me
to DOT's regulations limiting ex parte communications on pending
matters, I cannot provide specific comments as to how this rule, if
adopted, would be applied. As the docket for the particular rule does
not close until July 5, 2006, I would not want any of my comments here
to be misconstrued as indicating any intention by DOT (or me, should I
be confirmed) as to finalizing or modifying the proposed rule.
Complex corporate governance arrangements are not unusual in the
private sector. I have direct experience dealing with such arrangements
in the context of public corporations that are controlled by a single,
majority shareholder who must meet fiduciary obligations to minority
shareholders. While I would agree that such arrangements make
governance much more cumbersome as a formal matter, my practical
experience is that they are not in the end unworkable.
While it is difficult to predict how any particular corporation
would deal with the challenge of ``segmenting off'' decisions
concerning safety, homeland defense obligations, and the like from
foreign influence, I believe this could be handled by including
specific delegations of authority from the corporation's board of
directors that would restrict decisionmaking authority on those items
to a group of specifically identified U.S. citizens. These limitations
might also be spelled out in the transactional documents reflecting the
underlying investment. They could be reviewed for compliance by the
company's outside auditors. I would expect that, over time, as DOT was
presented with proposed arrangements for its consideration and
precedent developed, it would become relatively clear to airline
management and their potential investors which practices would pass
muster.

Question 3. We learned a tough lesson after September 11, 2001,
about the shortcomings in our Nation's aviation security. In response,
we set up an entirely new regime on how to deal with security problems
and issues, including better communications with senior management at
the carriers. How do you envision communicating critical security
information to a carrier that is under foreign control or influence?
Answer. Although DOT (including FAA) no longer has primary
responsibility for aviation security, my understanding is that the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has worked out
communications protocols with the various foreign carriers that serve
the United States. It is also my understanding that TSA regularly
exchanges critical security information with its counterparts overseas,
which presumably is then shared with foreign air carriers on a routine
basis. Foreign and domestic air carriers both have common interests in
wanting to prevent any act of terrorism. Therefore, I do not envision
the exchange of such information posing a challenge to maintaining our
homeland security, so long as that exchange is carefully managed.
Should the proposed rule be finalized, I would expect that critical
security information would be communicated by TSA (and in some
instances, DOT) to the U.S. citizens specifically designated by the
airline to receive such information. My understanding of the proposed
rule is that it would require that the U.S. citizens with principal
responsibility for compliance with security regulations be readily
available to the Federal Government when such information must be
communicated.

Question 4. The DOT claims that under its proposal, ``actual
control'' will always rest with U.S. citizens because any foreign
control acquired would be subject to revocation. How significant a
regulatory burden do you anticipate the DOT will face if it is to
effectively oversee, and ensure that foreign control can be
``revoked,'' as explained in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking?
Answer. My understanding of the SNPRM is that delegations of
authority to foreign interests must be revocable by U.S. citizens. I do
not anticipate that this would be create a significant regulatory
burden, as presumably such delegations would be presented to DOT at the
time the carrier first sought approval for a capital investment from
non-U.S. citizens. Moreover, given the consequences of failing to abide
by these delegations, I would anticipate few compliance issues, should
the rule be finalized.

Question 5. Do you agree that the Secretary of Transportation is
required to consider several objectives as being in the public
interest, including: keeping available a variety of adequate, economic,
efficient, and low-priced air services; encouraging, developing,
maintaining an air transportation system relying on actual and
potential competition; encouraging entry into air transportation
markets by new and existing air carriers and the continued
strengthening of small air carriers to ensure a more effective and
competitive airline industry?
Answer. Yes, without reservation. The objectives you cite are
specifically listed in the Federal Aviation Act, and if confirmed, I
would take seriously my obligation to fulfill those objectives as we
formulate policy and carry out the various programs authorized by
Congress.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
John H. Hill

Question 1. As Administrator, can you confirm that you will make a
determination as to the safety impacts of every issue concerning
proposals or positions on changing the standards for truck length or
weight on U.S. highways that the Administration considers?
Answer. If confirmed by the Senate, I will ensure that FMCSA
provides the Secretary with information about the potential safety
impacts of legislative proposals concerning the Federal size and weight
statutes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers the
statutory provisions concerning truck size and weight limits and
assessing the impacts of potential changes on the Nation's
infrastructure. FMCSA will work with FHWA to ensure that safety impacts
are considered as part of the analysis of any legislative proposals
concerning truck size and weight.
The Department recognizes concerns about the impact that increases
in truck size and weight limits, including the elimination of certain
restrictions on Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs), would have on the
Nation's highways. The current statutory restrictions on truck size and
weight and LCV operations limit action on this issue prior to the next
surface transportation reauthorization bill.
To ensure the safe operation of LCVs, FMCSA has regulations (49 CFR
Part 380) establishing minimum requirements for LCV drivers and LCV
driver instructors. The rule covers drivers that operate any
combination of a truck tractor and two or more trailers and semi
trailers, with a gross combination weight greater than 80,000 pounds,
and which operate on the National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways.

Question 2. What are you priorities for completing FMCSA
rulemakings?
Answer. Rulemaking is a vital part of the FMCSA mandate to improve
highway safety. As Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer of
FMCSA over the past 3 years, I have directed FMCSA staff to improve the
process of how our Agency responds to important Congressional direction
for regulatory action. If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to
ensure that all regulations, particularly those mandated by Congress in
SAFETEA-LU, are well written, enforceable and timely, with particular
emphasis given to regulations that fall within our developing medical
program and those that support the findings of the Large Truck Crash
Causation Study as to the critical role that the driver plays in the
majority of highway crashes.
______

Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Donna R. McLean

Question. President Bush has recommended a funding level for Amtrak
which would require a shutdown of the national passenger rail system.
From what you know about the company's finances, is a 900 million-
dollar Federal appropriation enough to maintain a safe and reliable
national system of rail service?
Answer. Transportation safety is always my number one priority.
Safety has always been the top priority for the Department of
Transportation, regardless of the Administration. Fortunately,
transportation safety has continued to improve; including Amtrak's
safety record. However, that safety record does not happen without a
dedicated team and resources. if confirmed, I would continually monitor
Amtrak's safety record and safety indicators and immediately alert the
Committee if these indicators deteriorate. Even with a constrained
funding level, maintaining a safe system has to be our top priority.
The reliability of a rail system is also very important. Amtrak has
had a mixed record on reliability. This reliability record has been
blamed on several factors, including the sharing of rails with freight
operators, and limited capital investment. From what I currently know
about Amtrak's finances, a $900 million investment would primarily
support operating expenses and limit capital investments. if confirmed,
I would want to explore the concerns raised by Amtrak employees
regarding the use of shared rails. Regardless of the Federal grant,
these agreements are crucial to improve the reliability of the system.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Andrew B. Steinberg

Question 1. Did you advise Federal Aviation Administration
officials that Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Section 40122, applies to
FAA's bargaining with its unions over working conditions, rather than
Title 5 of the U.S. Code, chapter 71?
Answer. The current framework for collective bargaining at the FAA
is unique within the Federal Government and was established when
Congress enacted ``personnel reform'' for the agency as part of the
1996 transportation appropriations act. The law required the Agency to
put in place a new personnel management system by April 1996.
Initially, the personnel reform amendments to the FAA's statute
excluded the agency from coverage under Title 5, Chapter 71. In March
1996, Congress restored coverage under Title 5, Chapter 71. However, in
October 1996, the Agency's statute was amended again explicitly to bar
the Administrator from negotiating with labor unions over compensation
and benefits--except under limited circumstances in which the Agency
was making changes in the personnel system first put in place in April
of that year.
The same law also created a new method for resolving impasses that
acted as an exception to Chapter 71. Specifically, the law provided
that in the event the negotiating parties reached impasse over any
changes to the personnel management system, then following Federal
mediation, the Administration could implement its proposal 60 days
after submitting its proposal to Congress. (49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(l)
and 40122(a)). The language is not limited to changes concerning
compensation and benefits. The personnel management system that was
first put in place in April, 1996 has included a wide range of policies
and procedures going well beyond compensation and benefits, including
hiring, employee and labor management relations, learning and
development, performance management, leave, work schedules, and many
other topics. By establishing different working conditions for
unionized work groups, each collective bargaining agreement entered
into by the agency has accordingly been treated as a change to the
personnel management system for that workgroup since 1996, well before
my tenure at the FAA.

Question 2. Many Members of the legislative branch have registered
significant displeasure with the Administration's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on foreign ownership and control of U.S. airlines. How will
you handle Congressional concerns with the proposal?
Answer. As I am sure you can appreciate, because my pending
nomination subjects me to DOT's regulations limiting ex parte
communications on pending matters, I cannot provide specific comments
as to how this rule, if adopted, would be applied to address
Congressional concerns. Although I have not been closely involved in
the formulation of the proposed rule, I am well aware of the
significant concerns expressed by Members of Congress concerning the
proposed rule on foreign investment in U.S. air carriers. As I prepared
for my confirmation hearing, and considered the potential
responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary position, I made a point of
educating myself about those concerns. If the rule is adopted and if I
am confirmed, I pledge to work closely with the Congress to ensure that
the rule is administered in such a way as to protect the public
interest in maintaining a safe and secure aviation system that fully
meets the Nation's homeland defense needs.

Appendix--Excerpts from Title 49

49 U.S.C. Sec. 106 (Federal Aviation Administration) provides:
(l) Personnel and services--

(1) Officers and employees--Except as provided in subsections
(a) and (g) of section 40122, the Administrator is authorized,
in the performance of the functions of the Administrator, to
appoint, transfer, and fix the compensation of such officers
and employees, including attorneys, as may be necessary to
carry out the functions of the Administrator and the
Administration. In fixing compensation and benefits of officers
and employees, the Administrator shall not engage in any type
of bargaining, except to the extent provided for in section
40122(a), nor shall the Administrator be bound by any
requirement to establish such compensation or benefits at
particular levels.

49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122. (Federal Aviation Administration personnel
management system) provides:

(a) In general--

(1) Consultation and negotiation--In developing and making
changes to the personnel management system initially
implemented by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration on April 1, 1996, the Administrator shall
negotiate with the exclusive bargaining representatives of
employees of the Administration certified under section 7111 of
title 5 and consult with other employees of the Administration.

(2) Mediation--If the Administrator does not reach an agreement
under paragraph (1) with the exclusive bargaining
representatives, the services of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service shall be used to attempt to reach such
agreement. If the services of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement, the
Administrator's proposed change to the personnel management
system shall not take effect until 60 days have elapsed after
the Administrator has transmitted the proposed change, along
with the objections of the exclusive bargaining representatives
to the change, and the reasons for such objections, to
Congress. The 60-day period shall not include any period during
which Congress has adjourned sine die.

(g) Personnel Management System--

(1) In generaL--In consultation with the employees of the
Administration and such nongovernmental experts in personnel
management systems as he may employ, and notwithstanding the
provisions of title 5 and other Federal personnel laws, the
Administrator shall develop and implement, not later than
January 1, 1996, a personnel management system for the
Administration that addresses the unique demands on the
agency's work force. Such a new system shall, at a minimum,
provide for greater flexibility in the hiring, training,
compensation, and location of personnel.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
R. Hunter Biden

Question 1. Mr. Biden, you come highly recommended based on your
past experiences. You have an opportunity to step in, be creative, and
really help our Nation's passenger rail system. You know this is not an
easy job and are well prepared to face the challenges ahead. How you
will approach the problems facing Amtrak, from the lack of funding to
the need to make major investments and reduce costs?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe that the primary challenge for
Amtrak is maintaining a comprehensive national rail system that is
safe, efficient and cost-effective. I will do everything in my power to
make sure that Amtrak is able to do that with the funds available to
it.

Question 2. This Committee has worked hard on a reauthorization
plan for Amtrak, favorably reporting S. 1516, sponsored by Senators
Lott and Lautenberg, Stevens, Hutchison and myself last year. Are you
familiar with this proposal and do you have comments regarding it?
Answer. I am familiar with it and I commend you and the other
sponsors for authoring a piece of legislation which goes a long way
toward solving many of the problems faced by Amtrak. I look forward to
working with Members of this Committee and Congress to make sure that
Amtrak does many of the things called for in this legislation.

Question 3. What do you believe the Federal Government's role
should be in the financing of Amtrak's capital and operating needs?
What role should the states and the private sector have?
Answer. Amtrak benefits many different stakeholders throughout our
Nation. As such, I believe that Amtrak should be a true public sector/
private sector partnership and that the Federal Government, state
governments and the private sector should all share some of the burden
required to make a safe, efficient and cost-effective national rail
system a reality. In an era of rising energy costs, there is no
question that the public and private sectors should do all they can do
to make sure our rail system is as healthy as it can be.

Question 4. Do you support Amtrak's operation of a comprehensive
national system or do you believe Amtrak should focus on developing
short distance corridors that connect city pairs in densely populated
regions? Or should Amtrak continue to develop both?
Answer. Amtrak should continue to do both. Amtrak must be a
comprehensive national system, but at the same time needs to look at
developing short distance corridors that connect city pairs in densely
populated regions to maximize revenue. There is no question that Amtrak
can do both and it must. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
this Committee and with Congress to make this a reality.

Question 5. One of the immediate issues facing Amtrak is
appropriations for the coming year. Amtrak requested approximately $1.6
billion in capital and operating funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. The
Administration requested only $900 million, which former Amtrak
President David Gunn consistently stated was a shutdown number when the
Administration proposed such funding levels in previous years. If
history is a guide, Amtrak will probably not get the $1.6 billion it
says it needs. As an Amtrak Board member, where will you recommend
Amtrak should focus its limited funds next year?
Answer. If confirmed, I am willing to consider any option to make
sure Amtrak operates at full capacity with the limited funds it
receives. I know that there are a number of intriguing and creative
cost-cutting measures that Amtrak is looking at and I believe a number
of them can be implemented to make sure that Amtrak continues to
operate safely and efficiently. Should Amtrak be forced to cut services
due to budget cuts, my first priority will always be to the passengers
and to making sure that they still receive the best service possible
and that it is provided in a manner that doesn't sacrifice their
safety.
______

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Mark V. Rosenker

Question 1. As Chairman, how will you work with the other Board
members to ensure they are involved in all key decisions facing the
Board, including management decisions, which impact the ability of the
Board to meet its mission?
Answer. I have placed and will continue to place significant
emphasis on communications with my fellow Board Members. During my
tenure as Acting Chairman, I have made a concerted effort to improve
communications throughout the Board, among NTSB staff, and between
staff and the Board members. Clearly, we have improved markedly over
the past year.
Office Directors at the Board prepare weekly reports that detail
the activities of their respective offices for the week and important
activities anticipated for the following week. In the past, these
reports were only available to the Managing Director and the Chairman.
As the Acting Chairman, I directed that my fellow Board Members be
included in the distribution of these reports. Also, we have initiated
quarterly management briefings for the Board Members. In these meetings
the Managing Director and General Counsel brief and discuss management
and administrative practices and activities of the agency with the
Board Members. This level of inclusion and engagement did not
previously exist for Board Members. We have reinstated quarterly
accident briefings on the status of recently opened investigations. I
have also directed the Managing Director to make our management
information, production schedules and other calendars and databases
available to the Board Members online, so that they may ascertain the
status of Board activity at any time. And I have directed the Managing
Director and executive leadership team to revise several key Board
Orders to ensure the Board's inclusion and participation in critical
mission activities.
Finally, as Acting Chairman, I have reinstated the policy that any
testimony that is being given before Congress, state legislative bodies
and letters which are being sent to other government agencies are
reviewed and available for comment by all Board Members. These
documents include budget submissions to the Office of Management and
Budget and the Congress. I have also insisted that the development of
the agency's Strategic Plan incorporate this collaborative process.
As Acting Chairman, and if confirmed as Chairman, I remain
cognizant of my responsibility as the designated chief executive of the
agency. Since becoming Acting Chairman, I have been committed to
greater inclusion of the Board Members in the mission activities of the
NTSB. I have sought to keep them fully informed and engaged in the
management decisions of the agency. At the same time, I have attempted
to improve our internal staffing and document management practices so
that the Board Members could participate in this level of activity
without slowing the day-to-day business of the organization. I believe
we are improving in all our activities, and are close to striking the
right balance in the decision-making process within this important
Federal agency.

Question 2. Will you commit to this Committee that all Board
members will have adequate and proper access to any information they
need that is being developed by agency's staff?
Answer. As mentioned in my response to Question 1, since assuming
my duties as Acting Chairman, I have directed staff to create and
sustain an array of communications practices that distribute management
information to the Board Members. This information covers accident
investigation report development, administrative matters, planning
documents, personnel and manning information, and financial reports on
a routine basis. This information is regularly updated and is now
available to the Board Members to review and use as frequently as they
wish. And as mentioned previously, Board Members now receive weekly
reports on activities from each of the operating offices, they
participate in quarterly management meetings and are briefed quarterly
on the progress and status of accident investigation activities.
I have made sure that those offices that report directly to me--
General Counsel and the Managing Director--are responsive to the
requests of my fellow Board Members as those Members perform their
important functions within the Board. I have also been adamant that
requests for information, questions concerning Board activities,
suggestions on Board actions, recommended comments and changes to
reports and other Board documents, and requests for assistance in
speech writing and press releases be given priority by agency offices.
In short, I have insisted that each of the Board Members be treated
with respect by the staff and that staff be responsive to Members as
products and activities are managed within the internal processes
agreed to by the Board.
If confirmed as Chairman, I will continue to ensure that Board
Members are fully informed about the activities of the agency and have
the opportunity to voice their concerns or concurrences. Moreover, I
have directed staff to continue to examine new and better ways to
exchange important information with the Board Members. I personally
commit to the Committee that, if confirmed, I will use my best efforts
to include all Board Members in the decision-making processes of this
agency.