[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3099-H3149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 270 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1401.
{time} 1429
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1401) to improve the security of railroads, public
transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United States, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Butterfield in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 20 minutes, with 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King) each will control 30 minutes, and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
{time} 1430
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
Three years ago this month, 10 explosions shook Madrid's commuter
rail systems, killing 191 people and leaving thousands wounded. As
Americans, we mourned the loss felt by Spain. We wondered whether
terrorists would try the same here at home. Then we waited.
The next year, suicide bombers attacked the Tube in London. Last
year, it was Mumbai. Last month, it was New Delhi. Each time we watched
and waited.
Mr. Chairman, the time for wondering and waiting has come and gone.
Today, we act. The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007
makes clear that America simply will not wait for terrorists to attack
our trains, buses and subways. We will act now to secure them.
A bipartisan bill, H.R. 1401, was passed unanimously out of the
Committee on Homeland Security. This legislation goes a long way to
protect our rail and mass transit systems so that we can move freely,
yet securely, through our communities.
For example, it requires rail and public transportation systems to
complete vulnerability assessments and security plans. It requires the
Department of Homeland Security to finally develop a strategy for rail
and transportation security. It strengthens intelligence and
information-sharing efforts. It ensures that hardworking rail and
public transportation employees are trained and on the lookout for
security violations. It requires railroads to use the most secure
routes to transport hazardous materials. It provides for much-needed
R&D testing and technology in the rail and public transportation arena.
I am certain that bill is not without its naysayers. There are some
that have and will continue to say that we can never secure these
systems. I have heard many excuses from people in the past years. They
say that the systems are too expensive, that the systems are too open,
that we should only worry about aviation.
I say in response, if Congress does nothing and America is attacked,
it will be our responsibility. We will deserve to be judged harshly for
our inaction. Instead of waiting, let's do something right and protect
the people we are here to serve.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I submit these two letters, correspondence between
myself and Mr. Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Oversight
[[Page H3100]]
and Government Reform, regarding H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007.
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Washington,
DC.
Dear Bennie: The Committee on Homeland Security reported
H.R. 1401, the ``Rail and Public Transportation Security Act
of 2007,'' on March 22, 2007. As you know, H.R. 1401 contains
provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, specifically section 112
dealing with whistle-blower protections for various federal
employees and contractors.
Because of your desire to move this legislation
expeditiously, I have agreed to waive consideration of the
bill by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I
appreciate your responsiveness after our discussions
including, in a manager's amendment, a number of changes to
the Committee reported bill.
By agreeing to waive consideration of the bill, the
Committee does not waive jurisdiction over H.R. 1401. In
addition, the Committee reserves its authority to seek
conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be
convened on this or similar legislation.
Finally, I ask that you please include this letter and your
response in the Congressional Record during consideration of
the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your
attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.
Chairman Henry Waxman,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Henry: Thank you for your recent letter expressing the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 1401, the ``Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act of 2007.'' The Committee on Homeland Security
appreciates your willingness to work cooperatively on this
important legislation.
The Committee on Homeland Security recognizes your
jurisdictional interest over provisions contained in this
bill, as amended, and appreciates your agreement not to
request a sequential referral. The Committee on Homeland
Security acknowledges that your decision to forgo a
sequential referral on this legislation does not waive,
reduce or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform. Accordingly, the
Committee on Homeland Security will support your efforts to
participate as conferees in any House-Senate conference on
this legislation or in any other legislation that includes
this legislation.
A copy of this letter, together with the letter you sent on
this matter, will be included in the Committee's report on
the bill and the Congressional Record when the bill is
considered on the House floor.
Thank you for your continued cooperation, and I look
forward to working with you as H.R. 1401 proceeds through the
legislative process.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
At the outset, let me thank Chairman Thompson not only for his work
on this bill in particular but for the spirit of cooperation that
prevailed throughout this entire period leading up to today.
I also want to commend Mr. Lungren, who was chairman of the
subcommittee in the previous Congress which did much of the groundwork
for this legislation and for the dedication that he has shown and
continued in his efforts as subcommittee ranking member.
Mr. Thompson had pledged, upon becoming chairman of the full
committee, that will be a main priority for him, and he has delivered.
There are certain parts of the bill that I would have problems with.
But having said that, I certainly commend him for the effort he has put
into this and, again, for level of cooperation not only between him and
me but between other members of the committee, between majority staff
and the minority staff.
Mr. Chairman, September 11 changed all our worlds, and we have
attempted in various ways to meet the threat that is presented to us by
international Islamic terrorism. Much work has been done at the
airports. Last year, we adopted very extensive and expansive port
security legislation, chemical plant security legislation.
Some strides have been made towards rail and transit security. But
today's bill, today's legislation is very much needed to take a more
significant step down that road.
We saw from the attacks on March 11, 2004, in Madrid; the attacks of
July 7 in London in 2005; and the attacks in India on commuter lines,
that terrorists certainly are targeting our rail and transit for
terrorist attack, one of the reasons being that it is so much more
difficult to secure transit than it is airports.
Certainly, looking at it very parochially, from my own perspective in
New York, the New York City subway system, it has more than 400 subway
stations. It has over 1,500 exits and entrances to those stations. In
addition to that, we have many, many tens of thousands of commuters
coming in from the suburbs of Long Island, upstate New York and New
Jersey every day.
It is not just a New York issue, by any means. This is an issue which
affects rail and transit throughout the country, but it is an issue
that must be addressed.
We have to look at the possibility that the next terrorist attack,
like London, Madrid and India, will be launched from the suburbs. It is
not just the inner city subways, big city commuter systems, but it is
all of them. All of them have to be protected to the extent that we
can.
We also have to support those systems which we believe can work, such
as the VIPER system, which I believe is essential.
We have to have training for the security personnel. I wish that the
legislation had also provided that the funding could go directly to the
police, who provide security. It won't be you will have to go through
the intermediary carriers, which I think is not a step in the right
direction, but I also understand the realities of what has to be done.
I think that certainly the police and the transit workers are the front
line of defense when it comes to securing our mass transit, and it is
essential that they receive the training that they need.
It is also essential that there be capital improvements, that, for
instance, the tunnels leading into main terminals be reinforced, that
the escape precautions be improved upon, that the first responders have
access to tunnels and terminals in times of terrorist attack.
So these are all issues which I believe are addressed to a
significant extent in the legislation.
As we said during the previous debate on the rule, there are parts of
the legislation, though, which would have been very, very essential, I
think, to have had amendments ruled in order. Mr. Lungren, I am sure,
will be addressing some of these issues, but I am concerned about the
whole issue on the whistleblowers as to what we do to protect national
security secrets and top secret materials and why the government will
be, in effect, precluded from asserting the State secret defense. That
is, to me, a very, very significant issue, and it is one where I
believe the legislation does not give us adequate protection.
Also, on the issue of Freedom of Information, which Ms. Ginny Brown-
Waite will discuss as to how we can protect top secret and classified
information, all of this to me is important.
But, having said that, this legislation is a very, very significant
step forward. It is a major step forward, and it is an area where,
again, we realize in a bipartisan way that more had to be done. While
significant, more has to be done in the future, because we have an
enemy which is constantly adapting, an enemy which is vicious and
deadly. As has been proven on 9/11, they can use any number of means at
their disposal.
We have to think outside the box. We have to try to anticipate what
they are going to do. If, God forbid, there is an attack, we want to
make sure our people are able to respond as quickly and as effectively
as possible. I believe that this legislation addresses much of that.
I want to thank the chairman for, again, the open-mindedness that he
has had on this in accepting many of our suggestions and also
negotiating and working with us and, again, just developing and showing
a spirit of bipartisanship, which I think is really essential.
Homeland Security should not be a partisan issue. We will and we do
have
[[Page H3101]]
honest differences, but I think the overwhelming majority of the issues
affecting Homeland Security can and should be addressed in a bipartisan
way.
On those issues that we cannot resolve, we can have honest,
intelligent differences on them without in any way questioning the
motives of either side and also realizing that sometimes very pragmatic
decisions have to be made. We can't allow the perfect to be the enemy
of the good.
I thank Chairman Thompson. I certainly thank Ranking Member Lungren
both for his efforts in the last Congress and in this Congress for all
that he has done and also the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1401, the Rail
and Public Transportation Security Act. This bill finally addresses the
security of our Nation's rail and mass transit industries, and it has
been put together in a bipartisan fashion.
The bill includes commonsense provisions that require transportation
providers to conduct thorough risk assessment and threat mitigation
plans. It also develops security training guidelines for front-line
workers who are the eyes and ears on the ground.
Finally, it gives over $1 billion in Federal grants for first
responder training, for purchasing of emergency response equipment,
interoperable communications systems and cargo and passenger screening
equipment. These steps identify where we are vulnerable and give the
right people the training and equipment to make us less so.
I also commend the committee for adopting the two amendments I
introduced.
The first, which I introduced with the help of Congressman John
Salazar from Colorado, adds Transportation Technology Center, Inc., in
Colorado to the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium so that it
can bring its expertise in providing additional security to rail and
mass transit systems. As the Nation's premier rail training facility,
this will give greater ability to respond to rail disasters.
My other amendment is one that I worked on with my friend from
California, and it clarifies Department of Homeland Security rules on
what crimes constitute security risks for employees during a background
check, and it provides a redress process for individuals who feel they
were unfairly fired or terminated.
Mr. Chairman, the security of America's railroad and public transit
systems are too important to ignore any longer. This bipartisan,
commonsense bill will drastically improve our security.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the ranking member for
that and at the outset if I could ask the gentleman from Colorado if he
would engage in a colloquy to clarify a section of the bill with me.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I certainly would, sir.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At committee, the gentleman and
I worked to clarify language in section 120, which he just referred to,
regarding background checks on employees. We included language that
specified that nothing in this section of the bill was intended to
preempt State and local governments from enacting or enforcing
requirements regarding criminal background checks.
Further, we agreed, and the committee agreed in report language, that
this section was not intended to prohibit an employer, including State
and local governments, from making any employment decisions otherwise
permissible under Federal, State or local law.
I would also like to clarify my understanding that this section is
intended to impact employers who are complying with the Department of
Homeland Security requirements, regulation or guidance, but does not
apply to employers who conduct background checks for other reasons.
I would ask the gentleman and yield to him whether this is his
understanding of the intent of the section.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes, I concur with your description of my amendment.
I thank you for the question.
First, I would like to thank the committee and my friend from
California, because we worked out language that would prevent
preemption of Federal, State or local laws for security background
checks.
Furthermore, these requirements only apply to Department of Homeland
Security guidelines. Private employers may conduct subsequent or
alternative security background checks, looking for other crimes, based
on their employment agreements or other applicable laws.
However, if a person is adversely affected by that security check
with regard to his or her employment, the employer may not use Homeland
Security as the impetus for that adverse decision.
This section addresses the concerns brought to our attention at a
hearing on the impacts of background checks on the transportation
workforce. Additionally, it provides a redress process modeled after
the transportation worker identification card program that carefully
balances the importance of background checks while protecting the
Nation's critical infrastructure.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
working with me on this bill and for clarifying this section.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. This is a bill which we
have worked on for some time. We started in the last Congress, holding
hearings on this in a bipartisan basis. We attempted to get information
from the public and private sector in these areas of our economy.
I congratulate the chairman of the full committee and the chairperson
of the subcommittee for moving forward with dispatch on this issue.
{time} 1445
We did work on other sectors of our economy with respect to the issue
of security against terrorist threats. We did very good work in the
area of port security. We did very good work in the area of chemical
facility security. I hope that we will continue to do work in the area
of the trucking industry.
Where we are talking about the rail system and mass transit systems
there is a demonstrated need for us to act, for us to have guidance
from the Federal Government to State and local governments in
cooperation with State and local governments, and for us to have
guidance for the private sector and to work with the private sector in
dealing with this threat that threatens all of us, public and private
sector combined.
At the same time, I would suggest that there are a couple of concerns
that I have about what form this bill may take. One of the areas that I
tried, by way of presenting a suggested amendment to the Rules
Committee to improve this legislation, was in the area of
whistleblower. I mentioned this earlier in the debate on the rule, but
let me just stress why this is important. We are dealing with an area
in which we are requiring and requesting that other entities work with
the Federal Government in coming up with security measures. And as a
result of that, there will be information that we do not want shared
with the outside world, that we certainly do not want shared in a
public venue such that those who would do us harm would have an
opportunity to be effective in their intent.
And that is why I was concerned, and other Members on my side of the
aisle were concerned, about the whistleblower provisions here, which,
frankly, do not carve out an exception for that area of the law dealing
with security-sensitive information.
This is of such concern that I understand the administration would
recommend a veto of this bill, not on the substance of it, but on the
whistleblower provision, and there is no reason for us to run into that
difficulty.
Secondly, in the area that will be discussed by the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite, we have the concern about allowing this
information out, not in a whistleblower setting, but just
[[Page H3102]]
allowing this information out as a result of requests under the Freedom
of Information Act.
And remember, prior to 9/11 we used to have all sorts of information
about nuclear facilities and other entities dealing with power, such
that someone could go on an Internet search and find out exactly what
the vulnerabilities of those particular facilities happened to be. We
realized after 9/11 that in our effort to get everything out to the
public we had probably damaged ourselves in terms of our vulnerability.
Here is another area where we are not, in my judgment, giving enough
concern about the possible ill effects of our effort to get everything
out in the public. And what we have said, and Ms. Brown-Waite's
amendment attempted to do, was to try and say, in those areas where we
have security-sensitive information, there ought to be an exception
from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. We did this on a
bipartisan basis in the Maritime Security Bill a couple of Congresses
ago. Why we are not doing the same thing here, I do not understand. And
if we had had our amendment to bring forward, we could have debated
that. And I hope we will take care of that problem on the Senate side
or in conference.
The last thing I would suggest is I understand there is going to be
an amendment presented on the floor about alternative material sources.
This deals with toxic inhalation materials. We worked very closely, I
worked personally with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in
this specific area, and we managed to come up with a bipartisan,
balanced approach to that. And I just hope when we have the short time
allowed for debate on that amendment, we will debate it in the context
of the bipartisan, balanced approach that we developed in our committee
and brought forth to this floor.
If you are going to present an amendment which basically is going to
have the effect, whether intended or otherwise, to remove these
materials from rail to our highways, how can we say we are any safer?
And, frankly, that is what that amendment will do.
So I hope Members will look at this, not as a partisan issue, and not
saying, well, it was offered by the majority side or the minority side,
therefore I am going to vote for it or defeat it on that basis, but
look at the actual words in there and look at what the impact will be.
We have made some mistakes in the past in our effort to do things
that we have done in the past without the knowledge of the threat of
terrorism that came upon us in 9/11. Let us not complete action on this
bill as if we were dealing with it on 9/10. This is a bill that ought
to be debated, considered, and voted on in the full light of the events
that took place on 9/11 and thereafter.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1401, the
Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. I want to thank
Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for moving this bill to the
floor in a bipartisan manner.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 includes only $41
million for TSA for surface transportation, less than 1 percent of the
TSA budget. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2006, DHS distributed
approximately $387 million for rail and mass transit security grants.
On average, that is only one penny of Federal homeland security funding
spent for each of the 9.5 billion transit passenger trips each year.
This number is miniscule compared with the average Federal security
investment of $9 per airline passenger trip.
This legislation represents the first step in closing the enormous
gap between Federal spending on aviation security and spending on
security for rail and public transportation.
As we saw in the uncovered plot to bomb the Herald Square subway
station in New York City, as well as the horrific attacks in Madrid,
London and Mumbai, terrorists are targeting mass transit systems, and
we must do what it takes to protect and secure our transportation
networks.
This bill, for the first time, authorizes dedicated risk-based
funding for the security of railroad carriers, public transportation
systems, and over-the-road bus systems.
It also provides for fire and line-safety improvements to be made at
Amtrak tunnels throughout the critically important Northeast corridor,
including six tunnels in the New York City area.
Every day, thousands of my constituents join more than 7 million
riders traveling on Metropolitan Transit Authority trains and buses
throughout the New York metro area. They expect and deserve to know
that the Federal Government is just as committed to rail security as it
is to other homeland security priorities.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the former sheriff of King County in Washington State and
current ranking member of the Intelligence Subcommittee, Mr. Reichert.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me
time to speak this afternoon. I also want to take a moment to
congratulate Chairman Thompson on bringing this legislation forward.
And I do rise, Mr. Chairman, in support of H.R. 1401. A number of the
speakers already have touched upon how the world has changed since
September 11, but sometimes we say those words and, really, the heart
and the meat of those words don't really touch our hearts. And if I
could just take a moment to share a story with you.
As I was traveling through my district a few months ago along the
freeways just south of the city of Seattle, I looked up at one of the
traffic advisory boards. Usually what you see on those advisory boards
are traffic alerts: take a different route; traffic accident ahead;
severe hazard is ahead; exit freeway; blocked freeway ahead. Those are
the things that we are used to seeing on our traffic advisory boards in
the Seattle area.
But on this day, as I looked up at the traffic advisory board, what
it said was, SEA-TAC Airport security alert. No gels, no liquids
allowed on planes in carry-on luggage.
That, to me, just struck for a moment at, really, the true change
that has happened since September 11. Freedom has been impacted by the
attack on the United States of America. And as we look at protecting
our homeland, it is so important for our protection to be coordinated
by law enforcement, by local law enforcement, for grant money to be
directed toward local law enforcement and partnering with the Federal
system, partnering with the Department of Transportation, partnering
with the airport and the rail and security people who protect our
railways, highways and airports. All of those have to be brought
together and in conjunction with the private sector. That is the duty
of local law enforcement to bring people together, to make our
neighborhoods and communities safe.
But, as I support H.R. 1401, as reported unanimously by the Committee
on Homeland Security, I am in strong opposition to the manager's
amendment that is up for consideration today.
Under the version of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, approved by the
Committee on Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security
would be responsible for distributing rail and public transportation
security grants. Unfortunately, good policy has given way to politics.
And in the manager's amendment, we see the responsibility for
administering these grants has shifted from the Department of Homeland
Security to the Department of Transportation.
In a statement by the National Sheriffs' Association on this
legislation, the association writes: ``Specifically, the National
Sheriffs' Association, sheriffs and law enforcement officials have a
vested interest in protecting national and homeland security and, in
order to do so, it is paramount that an obvious and central entity
exist to which sheriffs can turn to for support and assistance. Thus,
the National Sheriffs' Association believes that allowing the
Department of Homeland Security to maintain the primary role in the
assessment and the distribution of grant monies concerning rail
security will help maintain such a necessary and efficient Homeland
Security infrastructure.''
[[Page H3103]]
Let me repeat that last part, please: ``Allowing the Department of
Homeland Security to maintain the primary role in the assessment and
distribution of grant monies concerning security will help maintain
such a necessary and efficient Homeland Security infrastructure.''
In addition to this ill-conceived move, the manager's amendment makes
another critical error in determining who is eligible for the $2.4
billion of funds for rail security. Again, the version of this
legislation reported out of the Committee on Homeland Security allowed
State, local and tribal government entities, as well as railroad
carriers, to apply for these grants. Risk-based, threat-based. The
manager's amendment allows eligible railroad carriers only to apply for
these grants.
Mr. Chairman, as a former sheriff of a major metropolitan area, I
understand local law enforcement plays an important role in protecting
our Nation's transit and rail systems. A cynical person might say that
the manager's amendment serves as nothing more than a $2.4 billion
earmark for Amtrak, though I am sure that that is not the overt intent
of its author.
While the manager's amendment has made some improvements to this
legislation, specifically, the whistleblower provisions, I remain in
strong opposition to the dangerous changes the amendment makes to the
grant portion of this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the chairman of the
Emerging Threats Subcommittee.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
want to commend him on his outstanding leadership in bringing this bill
to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act, H.R. 1401, which will significantly
strengthen the safety of our Nation's rail and mass transit systems.
Mass transit systems worldwide have long been terrorist targets.
{time} 1500
Within the past few years, terrorists have exploited security
vulnerabilities to carry out attacks on mass transit systems in London,
Madrid, and Mumbai. We are fortunate to have escaped attack here in the
United States, but make no mistake about it, the threat continues to be
very real.
Each day, over 11.3 million Americans utilize our Nation's rail and
public transit systems. Therefore, we must strike a delicate balance
between tightening security and allowing for the free flow of
passengers heading to school, work, and recreational activities.
One of the ways we can make a difference is in training our mass
transit and railway personnel. Rail and mass transit security workers
are our first line of defense in identifying abnormal activity and
protecting passengers from potentially harmful situations. It is
therefore vital that we equip them with the training that they need to
be effective. Now, this legislation will create mandatory security
training programs to prepare all front-line railroad and public
transportation workers for potential threat conditions.
I am also pleased that this bill finally authorizes additional
funding for enhanced security efforts. On average, Mr. Chairman, we
spend $9 per air passenger annually on security but only 1 penny per
rail and mass transit passenger. This is clearly an unbalanced approach
to our transportation security.
Now, while we should continue to allocate sufficient funding to
secure our aviation sector, we must also increase the resources we
dedicate to rail and mass transit. I am confident that H.R. 1401 will
bring us another step closer to achieving this goal.
Mr. Chairman, we have certainly come a long way in making our Nation
safer since September 11, but we are still not yet safe. This bill,
combined with other homeland security measures passed in recent months,
will close many of the existing gaps and make our Nation safer.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of
legislation. Again, I commend the chairman for his leadership in
bringing this important bill to the floor.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Thompson and the ranking
member, Mr. Oberstar, and his ranking member as well for this very
important legislation that has come forward today.
Perhaps you, too, can hear the collective sighs of the American
people now that we are doing something about rail and mass transit.
They have wondered, and how could they not, whether the bombs that were
planted in Madrid and in London would somehow find their way into their
own subways or whether the Hazmat accidents could be more than that
here in this country.
I was moved by these vulnerabilities to be the lead sponsor first of
the Safe TRAINS Act, then the Secure TRAINS Act. After all, 800,000
Federal workers use our Metro daily. That did not inspire the Federal
Government to move forward. Finally, we have a bipartisan bill to
relieve the national anxiety of the average American about the forms of
transportation she uses most.
They watched as we poured billions into air travel security. We had
to do it, it was after the fact. But we left huge vulnerabilities.
Union Station, for example, the hub of the entire region, you have
beneath it the trains running underneath a hall where Members every
other day come to celebrate in the evening one or the other kind of
event. The District of Columbia was driven by the vacuum to actually
pass its own rerouting legislation that has not even been dismissed
ever yet. That shows you how vulnerable we are.
The bill finally instructs the Department of Homeland Security to
exercise leadership, to use its expertise so that transit systems are
not working on security on a case-by-case basis. We can't protect the
country by shoring up one mode of transportation alone--a virtual
invitation to then move elsewhere.
I think there is an important lesson here. I am on the Aviation
Subcommittee, so I have wanted to shore up air travel. But by shoring
up one mode of transportation, we may be offering a virtual invitation
for terrorists to go to the next most vulnerable target. That turns out
to be rail and mass transit, where we could least afford terrorist
events. That is where the American people are. I thank both sides of
the aisle for coming together on this bill to go precisely where they
are to protect the public at last.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I commend him
and the ranking member for their hard work on this piece of
legislation.
For too long, the Department of Homeland Security has ignored threats
to rail and public transportation and buses; and I am pleased to help
cosponsor this legislation to correct this problem.
In the face of recent attacks in London and Madrid and with our own
subways and buses still vulnerable, I am hopeful that this legislation
will make sure that the Department addresses this critical work.
In addition to closing security gaps in rail and mass transit safety
efforts and providing support and guidance for training, security
planning and research and development, this bill contains language that
I proposed requiring the Department of Homeland Security to assess
threats to our Nation's children posed by security risks to school bus
transportation.
School buses have been targets of terrorists throughout the world,
including here in the United States. Just last month, the FBI said that
members of extremist groups have purchased school buses and obtained
licenses to operate them, while adding that ``parents and children have
nothing to fear.'' I do not believe we can take these assessments at
face value without a comprehensive threat assessment of school bus
transportation.
[[Page H3104]]
School transportation is a patchwork of systems including public
entities, privately owned school bus companies, contractors who provide
school transportation, individual owner-operators of school buses who
contract with school districts or school systems. The risks are poorly
understood, as the FBI's muddled message indicates.
An attack on our school buses would be devastating not only in the
lives harmed but also in the psychological and symbolic impact. As a
former superintendent of schools for the State of North Carolina, I
know that children, parents, and schools deserve our school buses to
get children to school as safely and as securely as possible. We owe
our children no less than to be able to confidently say that our
transportation system is secure.
The bill requires DHS to perform a comprehensive threat assessment
for school transportation and make recommendations on how to respond to
these threats. The bill requires vulnerability assessments and security
plans for other modes of transportation in the public trust, and it
should be the same for our children.
I urge everyone to vote for it.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time and to the ranking
member for all your hard work.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank
Chairman Thompson for the strong leadership that he has shown on this
bill. I also thank Mr. King for the bipartisan support that he has
shown on this bill and with the committee.
I rise in support of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act of 2007. H.R. 1401 is an important piece of legislation
that takes steps to secure our Nation's railroads, over-the-road bus
networks, and the public transportation systems. In addition, the Rail
and Public Transportation Security Act includes provisions that take
strides in enhancing the security of transportation systems at our
critically important international land borders.
My hometown of Laredo, Texas, is one of the busiest ports of entry
into the United States and a hub of international commerce.
Approximately 1,600 railcars cross the border daily in Laredo.
Additionally, 163,000 cars cross annually that are loaded with freight
and headed to destinations throughout the United States.
To meet the challenge of securing our Nation's border rail ports of
entry, I worked with my chairman and my colleagues on the Homeland
Security Committee to include two important additions to H.R. 1401. The
first one supports the development and emergency response and recovery
techniques that can be used at our international borders. The second
gives rail inspection facilities at our international borders a
priority to receive critically important rail security grant funding
authorized by this legislation.
I am proud to support this legislation that will make our Nation's
rail, transit, and bus systems more secure and that will ensure that
the safety of citizens living across the Nation are secure as they use
these systems.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank our chairman for the leadership that he
has shown on this piece of legislation and for leading our committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a
former member, stellar member, of the House Homeland Security
Committee, Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey, who has moved on, but he still
has an interest.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. This is critical
legislation designed to focus on a long-time vulnerability that exists
within our Nation.
This bill is a real product of bipartisan cooperation. So I want to
commend our leader, Chairman Bennie Thompson, as well as Ranking Member
Peter King, both of whom I enjoyed working with and continue to work
with, even though I am not officially on the committee. You have
performed a tremendous service to this country, and we are indebted to
you. Your sagacity is seconded by no one.
We know that rail and public transportation represent a very tempting
target for those who wish to do us harm. London and Madrid are just two
recent examples of the mass transit systems that are plagued by
terrorism. Last year, in fact, the committee went to Madrid, to Rome,
and to London, and we saw the evil deeds of terrorists, and we learned
much, and they learned much from us. Thankfully, H.R. 1401 will make
needed and long-overdue investments in America's public transportation
to ensure that we are safer and more secure.
The bill provides for comprehensive, mandatory training for front-
line workers. That is so critical for us to understand. These are folks
that are on the job every day. Transit employees must know how to
identify risks and respond in case of a threat or attack.
And you know, Mr. Chairman, I felt very strongly about this,
discussed it with both of you, that we need to get more retired law
enforcement into these positions of security. They know how to detect
the threats that are on the line.
The bill also enhances whistleblower protections so that workers can
be free to report security concerns. This is critical, Mr. Chairman.
This has been so critical in exposing the security gaps at airports
throughout the United States of America. If people are not free to tell
us what they see day to day and are fearful that there will be reaction
against them, that is not good.
Most importantly, this bill provides $7.3 billion to public transit
agencies, Amtrak, bus operators, and other providers of rail and public
transportation. We want people to feel as safe on the trains as they
are in the air.
We know full well that rail and mass transit have been negligently
underfunded in terms of security since 9/11, and it is long past time
that we do this.
{time} 1515
Today we do that. I applaud the chairman and I applaud the entire
committee for their hard work.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I especially want to thank the
chairman for his outstanding leadership. It is an honor and really a
preeminent privilege to serve with him on this committee. I also thank
the ranking member. I would thank also the subcommittee Chair, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, from the great State of Texas. She and I have districts
that are juxtaposed right next to each other.
Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this legislation because it authorizes
$140 million to Amtrak to improve tunnels in the Northeast corridor. It
requires programs that will cause our transit employees to be trained
on how to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks. Our
first line of defense will be prepared to defend as a result of this
bill.
This bill requires that we look forward, and it authorizes $200
million over the next 4 years to find solutions to security threats.
This bill protects those who would protect us in that the
whistleblowers will be protected. I trust that while it may not be a
perfect provision, it is better than what we had, and I assure the
public that this is going to help us.
This bill will help us to get the additional inspectors that we need.
We will move from 100 inspectors to 600 by 2010.
This bill helps us to protect America's future, our children, in that
it provides for school bus transportation security assessments.
This bill provides for enhanced security for shipments of sensitive
materials.
Finally, of the many things I can say, I want to remind us that this
bill provides that violators of the act will be punished. There are
both civil and criminal penalties for violators.
I think this is a good bill. I am honored to have my name associated
with it as an original cosponsor.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member King and Chairwoman
[[Page H3105]]
Jackson-Lee for their vigilance on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act of 2007, H.R. 1401. In the past, Congress has passed laws
to improve air and maritime security. With this bill, Congress is
finally taking the very important step of securing America's vast
ground transportation systems.
It is particularly important for my home city of New York, which has
spent far more of its own treasury than any other city on securing its
citizens. Along with providing much-needed funding for security
improvements to mass transit, bridges and tunnels, this bill will also
help fund police and counterterrorism task forces to patrol the areas
and react to emergencies.
Further, this bill provides $100 million over the next 4 years to
bring about long-anticipated safety and security renovations at Penn
Station, which sees thousands of New Yorkers and tourists from across
America each day.
I am particularly proud of the language included in the bill that
ensures labor unions will play an integral role in the solution. Unions
will now be eligible to receive a portion of the grant funding,
allowing them to work hand-in-hand with transportation carriers on how
to improve the safety of the workers and passengers alike.
Also, for some time, many local governments and agencies have been
concerned about their lack of involvement with the Federal side of the
transportation security process. For years, Federal security inspectors
have refused to consult with transit agencies about how best to patrol
their facilities. This new bill will force DHS and DOT to work together
with State and local governments when deciding how the Federal
Government will interact with local agencies.
H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007,
is an excellent bill that will revolutionize transportation security in
America, and I wholeheartedly recommend that my colleagues join me in
voting ``yes'' for this bill.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding, and
I want to recognize the chairman and the ranking member for their
exceptional leadership on this critical issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1401, the Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, and urge its swift passage.
Horrific terrorist events around the world have forced us to focus on
rail security. This bill is an important and necessary step towards
protecting our Nation's rail and surface transportation safety.
My district is home to the world-renowned Transportation Technology
Center in Pueblo, Colorado. TTCI's Emergency Response Training Center
conducts hands-on hazmat training for first responders and is known in
the field as the premier graduate school for surface transportation
hazmat training.
My good friend and fellow Coloradan, Mr. Perlmutter, highlighted in
committee the critical role that TTCI plays in advancing rail security,
research and development and hazmat training.
By making TTCI the sixth member of the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium, it will add a critical component to the consortium that is
now missing. TTCI is the only facility in the Nation that has the
experience and assets necessary to test new emergency response and
recovery techniques. Adding TTCI to the consortium will help fulfill
the goals of this bill, making our rail lines safer from homeland
security threats by enabling the facility to accelerate its already
outstanding work in the field of rail security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the investment in rail
and public transportation security and passage of this much-needed
bill.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, and I
commend the Committees on Homeland Security and Transportation for such
an outstanding piece of work. But I also want to just take this
opportunity to pay serious appreciation to the chairman of Homeland
Security, to the chairman of Transportation, Representative Oberstar,
and to the chairman of Judiciary, Representative John Conyers.
I was involved in a situation with an issue that we brought to them,
and, as a result of their humaneness, their serious understanding and
their recognition of the need to protect the rights of individuals
throughout America, I think we ended up with a bill that I am strongly
in support of, urge its passage and, again, commend all of these
gentleman for their tremendous sensitivity and hard work.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the
distinguished chairman of the committee and thank the ranking member
and the members of the committee who worked so diligently. Let me
specifically thank the members of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Security and Critical Infrastructure. Each and every one of them worked
tirelessly to contribute to this bill, along with members of the full
committee.
This has been a very tough mountain to climb. We waited for 4 years
to travel through a number of legislative initiatives, and finally we
reached a point where we are able to bring to the floor the Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
Let me thank the chairperson, Mr. Thompson, for his vigorous
leadership and his concern, so much so that he organized and made sure
that the full Homeland Security Committee was organized to have a
subcommittee that would focus on transit systems which would include
over-the-road buses, trucking and a number of other important transit
systems or transportation systems that heretofore had not been covered.
Let me also thank him for the inclusion of the aspect of critical
infrastructure because, interestingly enough, when you look at
transportation systems, critical infrastructure plays into the holistic
approach to security. So this bill I think has a holistic approach to
ensuring that we have security, and it has as a backdrop the tragedies
of Madrid and the tragedies, of course, of London.
So what we do is, how do we fix the problems. I think we have a
hands-on approach, but a balanced approach, between the Departments of
Transportation and Homeland Security. We increase the number of
inspectors to 600. We require a national rail and public transportation
security plan. For the first time in the history of this Nation, we
will clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State and local
agencies, so that if you have a local transit agency, they will have
the opportunity to develop a transit security system. I would encourage
my colleagues as this bill makes its way that we focus on local
jurisdictions having security plans.
It will strengthen intelligence sharing. One of the Achilles heels of
9/11 was that we did not share intelligence. We will do that as relates
to transportation systems.
Then we will lay out plans for public outreach and public education
initiatives. It will include strategies and time lines for research and
develop. We have expanded, of course, this whole idea of security to
diverse groups that have not heretofore had the opportunity, minority
institutions, minority contractors and women-owned businesses that can
become engaged.
And, yes, our committee had a hearing on the tension, but also the
separation, between the hiring of individuals and the requirements of
railroad companies versus the requirements of the Department of
Homeland Security, so we wouldn't use security as a reason for
terminating individuals.
This bill has a positive end to it. We will bring rail security to
America, Mr.
[[Page H3106]]
Chairman. I am proud to have been the subcommittee Chair on this and
proud of this committee. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
As the Chairwoman for the Homeland Security's Subcommittee on
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, we have held
numerous vital hearings on the topic of transportation security. These
hearings were attended by the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr.
Lungren from California, and other Committee Members from both parties.
Over the past couple of months, the Committee on Homeland Security
has heard testimony on the important issue of rail, mass transit, and
over-the-road bus security. After hearing the experts' testimony, I,
like many Americans, am appalled by the failure to provide ongoing and
continuous oversight in transportation security--specifically, in the
areas of rail and mass transit.
Throughout the world, mass transit systems have long been targets of
terrorist attacks. Algerian extremists set off bombs on the subways of
Paris in 1995 and 1996; the Irish Republican Army waged a long-running
terrorist campaign against the London Underground; Palestinian
terrorists have carried out suicide bombings on Israel's buses;
Chechnyan terrorists killed 40 people by bombing the Moscow subway in
2004; and, in the first terrorist use of a chemical weapon, a Japanese
cult--Aum Shinrykyo--released sarin gas on a Tokyo subway in 1995.
Recent events make it clear that the threat continues. On the morning
of March 11th, 2004, ten explosions occurred at the height of the
Madrid rush hour aboard four commuter trains. On July 7, 2005, during
the morning peak travel hours, three separate explosions ripped through
the London Underground and a fourth explosion occurred on a double-
decker bus. These four explosions, the result of coordinated suicide-
bombings by British-born Islamic extremists, claimed the lives of 56
people and seriously injured hundreds more. Two weeks later, on July
21, 2005, another group of terrorists unsuccessfully attempted to
attack London's mass transit system again. On July 11th, 2006 a series
of seven bomb blasts against the Suburban Railway in Mumbai (formerly
known as Bombay), capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra and
India's financial capital resulted in 207 lost lives and over 700
injured.
The recent attacks serve as a harsh reminder of mass transit and rail
security vulnerabilities. Both mass transit and rail systems are public
and used by millions of people daily. Because of their size, openness,
and highly networked character, there are no obvious checkpoints, like
those at airports, to inspect passengers and parcels. Passengers are
strangers, promising attackers anonymity and easy escape.
And attacks on mass transit--the circulatory systems of urban areas--
can cause widespread fear, severely disrupt economic activity, kill or
injure large numbers of people, and alter our way of life. An attack on
our freight rail, either the material being transported (such as
hazardous materials, or vital commodities), or merely the system
itself, could severely impact our national economy.
As a result, both mass transit and rail systems are attractive
targets. Since September 11, 2001, according to the Memorial Institute
for the Prevention of Terrorism, mass transit systems have been the
target of more than 145 terrorist attacks.
Due to their existence in high-population, high-risk urban areas,
mass transit systems are also inevitably affected by any terrorist
attack that may occur within that jurisdiction--regardless of whether
the transit system was the target of the attack. For example, during
September 11, 2001, two of New York City's busiest transit stations
were lost and considerable damage occurred to the tunnel structures,
endangering hundreds of lives underground. Great care was required to
evacuate passengers, locate and rescue trapped transit cars, and
communicate instructions. The damage in New York City was so great that
in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress appropriated $1.8 billion
to rebuild the subway infrastructure that was damaged in the attacks. I
am hopeful that through this legislation we can prevent such attacks
rather than face the tragic consequences of 9/11 again.
I refuse to sit idly by and allow another
9/11 or Madrid, London, or Mumbai bombing to disrupt our Nation and its
critical infrastructure--it is with that conviction that I seek to
address these issues. The recent world events should serve as a wake-up
call that we must do more to secure our transportation systems and we
must act quickly and responsibly.I firmly believe that the legislation
before us today will take an important step in securing our
transportation systems.
Pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001
(ATSA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible
for the security of all modes of transportation including rail and mass
transit. TSA, however, has focused the majority of its resources and
assets on aviation security in the past five years.
Congress, recognizing TSA's lack of progress in developing a security
strategy for all modes of transportation, mandated the development of a
National Strategy for Transportation Security in the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (``9/11 Act''). This
strategy, although due April 1, 2005, was not finalized by TSA until
September 2005. Moreover, the document provided by the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) did not meet the requirements set out by
Congress, especially with regards to rail and mass transit security.
Furthermore, subsequent congressionally mandated updates were also not
met by TSA, resulting in the 9/11 Discourse Project giving the TSA a C-
for its efforts.
TSA's failure to assume a leadership position on surface
transportation security is plainly evident. It is time that we take
action and leadership to help protect the more than 11.3 million
passengers in 35 metropolitan areas and 22 states who use commuter,
heavy, or light rail each weekday. There must be substantial penalties
for those who do not follow the security plans, vulnerability
assessments, and regulations set out in this legislation.
This bill provides the framework by which to create an ongoing and
constant oversight process for our overlooked modes of transportation.
Working with other federal government agencies, the Department of
Homeland Security will monitor and assess the progress made by
transportation providers and their workforces in implementing the
security training mandated for transportation workers in this bill. I
am also pleased that I was able to ensure in this bill that DHS would
leverage its work in regards to security training with the safety
training which has already been developed in universities and
institutions of higher learning.
These institutions with existing transportation programs will also
have an opportunity to participate in the National Transportation
Center of Excellence Consortium. These programs have spent numerous
years developing solutions for transportation vulnerabilities and this
knowledge should be employed. I am especially pleased that minority
serving institutions will play an active role in contributing to
improving our transportation security.
Furthermore, neighborhood and local participation through programs
such as Citizen Corps exercises is also critically important in
facilitating security exercises. The millions of men and women who live
next to railroad tracks and subway stations will be directly impacted
if there is an attack, and they should be active and knowledgeable
participants in preparing for such a tragic incident.
Furthermore, I am pleased that I was able to work with Chairman
Thompson and Chairman Oberstar on the issue of rail security grants for
security improvements to new start rail projects and systems. New start
rail projects throughout the country will be more secure because we
were able to incorporate language ensuring that rail security grants
are used for security plans for new start rail projects which have not
become operational yet.
Mr. Chairman, I also worked to ensure that this bill will authorize
some much needed human resources to the Transportation Security
Administration in the form of 600 additional rail security officers and
inspectors. TSA will need additional manpower to meet the mandates set
out in this legislation, such as approving of security plans and
implementing training programs for covered transportation workers. The
100 additional officers I was able to secure will ensure that TSA is
equipped to live up to its new mission.
This bill also authorizes more than $5.1 billion for the next four
years, for rail, mass transit, and bus security. The funds called for
in this bill should be based on risk and the priorities established by
DHS. With this bill--for the first time--we will have comprehensive
vulnerability assessments and security plans for rail, mass transit and
buses.
I find it completely appalling that this Administration seems to be
unwilling to act on rail and mass transit security until we are faced
with another disaster. I shudder to think that if the Washington, DC or
New York subway systems were attacked, and mass casualties resulted,
that we would be thinking that more could have been done to prevent
such a tragedy. We will be desperately trying to figure out how to
prepare for a disaster that has already happened and holding hearing
after hearing to find out where we dropped the ball. The time to
prepare is now, and I am committed to securing our nation's rail and
mass transit system expeditiously. We have been blessed thus far that
our rail and public transportation systems have not been attacked. We
should make our best efforts to ensure that we do not overlook this
blessing.
From the terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world, we
know that terrorists will
[[Page H3107]]
target our rail and public transportation systems. Despite this
admonition, the agency created and funded by Congress to address the
issue of transportation security has consistently dropped the ball when
it comes to rail and public transportation. We cannot let the lessons
of Madrid, London, and Mumbai go unheeded. For the sake of the millions
of Americans who use our rail and mass transit systems every day to go
to work, school, and visit friends and family, we have to take charge
on this security risk.
What we are witnessing with the Transportation Security
Administration is a lack of complete accountability. The Transportation
Security Administration is not being held fully accountable for
protecting our transportation systems and this must change. I
acknowledge and appreciate the time that TSA Administrator Kip Hawley
has taken to participate in this important hearing. However, we cannot
tolerate the TSA's past inaction on this issue to continue for a moment
longer.
While it is understandable that we would put focus on the safety of
air travel, given the events of 9/11, what cannot be justified is the
completely lopsided attention by the Department to aviation security at
the expense of rail and mass transit security. I am pleased that this
Congress and Chairman Thompson have decided to do what this
Administration has thus far proved unwilling to do. That is, to provide
a comprehensive framework to secure this nation's rail and public
transportation systems.
We owe it to the public to safeguard the modes of transportation that
allow them to carry on with their lives and drive this economy.
Millions of men and women ride our nation's rail and public
transportation systems every day; we owe it to them to ensure that they
can do so safely and securely. I hope that through today's hearing and
our continued efforts on the issue of rail and mass transit security,
we can resolve the asymmetric way in which we treat aviation versus
rail security and resolve the substantial threat posed by inadequate
security on our rail and mass transit system.
I want to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work and
dedication to these important issues, but I also want to emphasize that
our job is not complete until we pass this bill and send it to the
President. I eagerly look forward to the expeditious enactment of this
critical legislation.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me again commend Chairman
Thompson for his very high level of cooperation, for the dedication he
has shown to this, and again thank Mr. Lungren, the ranking member of
the subcommittee, for his efforts in the previous Congress and this
Congress, and also the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her
efforts.
Mr. Chairman, the country was caught unaware on September 11. We
could perhaps say that we did not anticipate the ferocity of the attack
or the nature of the attack or the nature of our enemy, but we no
longer have that excuse. September 11 certainly made us fully aware of
how deadly our enemy is. Since then, whether it be intelligence reports
or whether it be the attacks in London, Madrid or Mumbai, we realize
also that mass transit is a favorite target of Islamic terrorists.
So we have no excuses. We have to move forward, and that is what this
legislation does. It sets a coordinated national policy toward dealing
with attacks on our public transportation system. It coordinates at the
national level with the State and local officials what has to be done.
It provides a level of training to our transit workers and to our
police.
As I mentioned before, in New York, as Ms. Clarke knows well, there
are more than 5 million riders on our mass transit system every day.
As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned, he and I
and a number of other members of the committee last year visited London
and we visited Madrid. We saw the extent of the carnage and the
destruction that was caused. We full well realize that the next
terrorist attack may very well be launched from the suburbs. It could
be brought in on a commuter train to our cities. The subway systems
themselves, the mass transit systems themselves are extremely
vulnerable to attack.
We can never be 100 percent secure. We can probably never reach the
same level of protection on a subway system or mass transit system, for
instance, that we can at our airports.
{time} 1530
We do a great deal. And that is what this bill does, it moves us
forward. It provides levels of protection that we do not currently
have. And it is going to be an ongoing work in progress. It is going to
be something that requires our continued dedication, our continued
effort. It is going to require continued bipartisan effort, bipartisan
support.
So I look forward to working with the chairman at least for the next
21 months in his role as chairman and, whatever happens after that,
continue to work with him. Because this is, again, an issue, it is a
threat that goes far beyond any type of partisan divide. It is
something that should bring us all together as Americans. There is so
much that we have in common where our values and principles are shared,
are in common that, as Democrats and Republicans and, most importantly,
as Americans, we can work together. This bill goes very far in that
direction.
Again, I commend the chairman. I commend all of the members of the
committee on both sides for their efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me, at the close,
thank my ranking member of the committee.
Our committee, as you know, has a reputation of being one of the more
bipartisan committees here on the Hill; and I look forward to
continuing that. Mr. King has done a wonderful job.
Clearly, this legislation helps close the gap in terms of
vulnerability. Those people who fly have been reasonably safe since 9/
11. However, we clearly have vulnerabilities that we need to fix on the
rail and public transit systems. So what this bill does is move us in
that direction.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1401.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Snyder). All time has expired on this
section of general debate which has been controlled by the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
King).
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 10 minutes of
general debate.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This legislation is vitally important. It is long-standing. Actually,
transportation security legislation in the aftermath of September 11
originated in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where
the gentleman from Alaska, then the chairman, and I worked on a wide
range of transportation issues. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica),
then the Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I worked on what
became the Transportation Security Administration, the TSA, the
aviation portion of it.
So we have a long-standing interest and involvement and in-depth
engagement in this issue of transportation security. And now that the
Homeland Security Committee has been created, we share aspects of this
jurisdiction with that committee under the able leadership of the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the able chairman of the
committee. We are very grateful for the opportunity we have had to work
together to align our interests and achieve a memorandum of
understanding that has been incorporated into the Rules of the House on
the shared jurisdiction.
Over a decade before September 11, 40-plus percent of terrorist
incidents were carried out against rail systems and transit buses; and
events of recent note show that those kinds of attacks continue.
The transportation systems covered under this legislation cover over
11 billion passengers. In the United States, every day 14 million
people use public transportation for some 10 billion plus transit trips
annually.
This legislation gives us new authority and new funding to address
the needs of those transit systems, to protect them against attacks,
reduce their vulnerability and improve the security of passengers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to have come to the floor and
supported this bill. However, the more I learn
[[Page H3108]]
about some of the provisions of the manager's amendment that will be
offered, the more I learn about some of the special interest provisions
that have been put in this bill in the name of some special interest,
as opposed to national security, I find myself inclined to vote against
the measure and final passage, if it continues as it is now crafted.
First of all, I truly believe that the security grants that are
provided for under the provisions of this legislation will not prevent
terrorist attacks. This isn't always a question, as I said earlier on
the rule, of how much money we spend. I have no problem as a Member of
Congress spending money on rail and transit security. It is how we
effectively spend that money.
This bill is not going to prevent a Madrid, where cell phones and
backpacks were used. This is not going to prevent a London, where
clean, unknown suicide bombers exercised their will and slaughtered
many people, both aboveground and underground.
I was there just weeks before and saw some of the measures that they
put in place. Now they were nice surveillance measures, but we can't
make the same mistakes. If we want to stop terrorism, we are going to
have to penetrate the organizations, the finances and the
communications of individuals that are willing to take their own lives
and others. This bill is not going to, as it is crafted, provide that.
The other thing that was prohibited from both the Homeland Security
Committee and the T&I Committee was the ability to amend this. As we
saw this product developing, we did not put in a needs assessment or
risk assessment, which has never been done for rail or transit
security, so we don't know where to spend the money.
We heard some of the Members saying we are going to have 600
inspectors. Do we need those 600 inspectors? Someone else said we are
going to make these grants available to unions. Is that the best
interest or is that serving some special interest?
So I have grown to have some very serious concerns about the
provisions of this legislation. And the American Association of
Railroads has said that, in fact, this is going to dismantle safety and
security as we know it under existing law with the preemption clause
that has been provided here.
So from State to State under the provisions of the way this manager's
amendment is crafted, the regulations will vary. Can you imagine a
train going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction under those
circumstances?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from
Florida, the Chair of the Rail Subcommittee.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to thank Chairmen Oberstar and
Thompson for working together to bring this important legislation to
the floor.
For too long, we have neglected the security of our rail and transit
system, and this legislation will go a long way to make up for this.
March 11 marked the third anniversary of the train bombing in Madrid,
where 191 people were killed and 2,050 were injured. Since that
terrible terrorist attack, additional bombings have occurred in London
and India, killing hundreds more people. It is obvious that we must be
ready for a similar attack here in our own country, but, sadly, we are
not.
Mr. Chairman, each year more Americans ride on rail and transit
systems than they do on planes, yet the money we are putting in
security is a mere fraction of what we devote to aviation security. In
2006, the Federal Government spent $4.7 billion for airline security,
yet only $136 million for rail and transit systems. Five times more
people take trains over planes each day, yet we spend 35 times more on
aviation security than we do on rail and transit security. This is not
acceptable.
Chairman DeFazio and I recently held a hearing on rail and transit
security, and what we found was discouraging. Since 9/11, the
Department of Homeland Security has failed to issue a strategy to
secure our rail and transit infrastructure, and the Transportation
Security Administration has not completed a risk assessment of these
systems.
Additionally, the rash of international terrorist bombings means that
terrorists are getting smarter. Their future attacks will be harder to
prevent. The window to secure our rail and transit infrastructure is
closing quickly, and we need to act. While the Department of
Transportation has done the most work of all agencies to secure this
segment, it is obvious that much more work needs to be done.
I am glad that the manager's amendment will require DHS to work with
the DOT to improve our Nation's rail and transit security system. It is
hard to believe that almost 6 years after 9/11 we still have not
addressed the rail and transit security. But election brings changes,
and I am glad that we, the new congressional leadership, have common
sense to take steps to protect the millions of people who use our
Nation's many rail and transit systems.
The legislation on the floor today takes important steps to address
our Nation's rail and transit security. This bill requires
comprehensive security plans, strengthens whistleblower protection for
workers, mandates security training, improves communications and
intelligence sharing, authorizes a high level of grant funding for
Amtrak, the freight railroads and public transit providers, and
provides funding for safety improvements to the tunnels in New York,
Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
Most importantly, it ensures our communities, first responders,
transit and rail workers have the resources they need to keep their
systems safe and secure; and it does it through a coordinated effort
between the Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.
While we may lag behind other countries' efforts to protect transit
and rail workers, I am glad that our new congressional leadership is
taking steps to correct this problem.
H.R. 1401 will go a long way to protect our Nation's millions of
transit and rail passengers, while protecting the communities they
travel through and keeping the trains running on time.
I encourage my colleagues to safeguard their constituents and support
this long-overdue rail and security legislation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
Republican leader on the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with great concern and in opposition to H.R.
1401.
I think there are many provisions in this bill that are positive,
that will enhance security, but I am concerned about the strategy as we
move forward. Do we have one to move forward, spending billions of
dollars?
In addition, there are a couple of provisions in this bill, section
124, which would require carriers to ship along the most secure routes.
That sounds good, but when you put in there shipping along these routes
without concern for safety, you may decide that when you look at what
may be to some secure, you have serious safety considerations, whether
the track is safe or what the weather is going to be like, and what is
the first responder capabilities? Those are things that we have to
consider when we are deciding on which route to take different
shipments.
Also, the background checks. Section 120, I believe, weakens the
background checks and it appears to me may pressure private industry to
hire people, hire felons that we don't want working on the rail system
that could further jeopardize our security.
The whistleblower protection. I believe it already affords adequate
whistleblower protection for our workers. Keeping it under its current
law under the Federal Rail Administration I believe is much better than
moving it over to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor
hasn't had the experience in working with rail and rail labor, where
the FRA has great experience. So I think we need to leave it there
instead of moving it to an agency that, as I said, has no experience.
Most importantly, I rise today to oppose the manager's amendment. For
decades, the Federal policy has given the U.S. Department of
Transportation preeminent jurisdiction over rail safety under the
Federal Railroad Safety Act. Section 3 of the manager's amendment would
destroy that Federal preemption.
[[Page H3109]]
{time} 1545
Under current law, States may enact safety laws as long as they
address unique local safety hazards.
As I said, section 3 of the manager's amendment will change all of
that. This would balkanize our rail system and subject railroads to a
hodgepodge of State and local regulations. Railroads could face
different rules every time they crossed a State or county or municipal
border. Imagine, 50 States, 50 different jurisdictions, or more, when
you talk about the different counties in America. And they could
regulate on braking systems, the number of people on the trains, and
the types of trains that we use or the tracks we use. In fact, in
California there are proposals out there that they want to change the
track standards, they want to change the types of locomotives.
This is going to destroy the efficiency of the national rail system
that we have created, a successful one over 20 or so years. And I
repeat, this is not a security issue. It does not belong in this bill.
And I hope the chairman of the full committee joins me in opposing this
manager's amendment because rail safety belongs in a rail safety bill,
which the subcommittee is going to take up. So I urge my colleagues to
oppose the manager's amendment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes
to the previous Chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current ranking
Republican leader of the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the House of
Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman, and I thank Ranking Member Mica
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member of
the Homeland Security Committee for bringing this important legislation
to the floor. As Mr. Shuster indicated, there are some good provisions
in the bill that will improve our Nation's rail network and the flow of
freight and passengers using that. However, there is something very
troubling in the manager's amendment which will be discussed soon.
Without careful consideration, there is a provision in the manager's
amendment that could be detrimental to anybody who wants to ship
anything on rail in this country or any passenger who wants to ride on
Amtrak.
Unfortunately, section 3 of the manager's amendment is crippling to
the bill. This section will undermine the efforts of the U.S.
Department of Transportation and FRA's efforts to create a sound
national safety policy. As Mr. Shuster indicated, for decades the
preeminent jurisdiction has been maintained by DOT. Section 3 destroys
that Federal preemption.
Under current law, States can enact safety laws as long as they
address the unique local safety hazard. The amendment before us will
change that and will allow States to effectively override Federal
policies. With this amendment, the railroads could have 50 different
sets of local laws to follow, and Federal law would no longer provide
the blanket policy for the carriers to follow.
A few of the things that we look at on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is how DOT and FRA are doing with the
implementation of our laws and regulations relating to the safety and
security of the Nation's railroad. In addition, as a committee we also
look into issues such as capacity on railroad network, and how
efficiently and effectively the network is working for the freight
passengers using the network.
Because this provision has been inserted into the manager's amendment
without the benefit of bipartisan testimony and hearings, the
catastrophic consequences of such provision have not been debated or
considered, in my opinion, in regular order. I call for regular order
today, Mr. Chairman. I know that the chairman of our full committee and
the ranking member of our full committee are thoughtful Members,
deliberative when it comes to our Nation's transportation laws. This
provision severely cripples the good work of our committee, in my
opinion, the good work of DOT, and FRA. We should not make radical
changes to the law without careful bipartisan consideration. The
consequences that has not occurred.
I would indicate that Chairwoman Brown has had a hearing. And I know
the gentleman from North Dakota is preparing to speak on the horrible
events that occurred in Minot, North Dakota. We also had the benefit of
what used to be the American Trial Lawyers Association. I think in the
greatest PR stunt in the universe they are now the American Association
for Justice; they are no longer the Trial Lawyers.
I think that the gentleman's concern can be addressed without
throwing out the Federal preemption, and I am saddened that the
manager's amendment does that, and I hope my colleagues will oppose the
manager's amendment because of section 3.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/2\ minutes,
and the gentleman from Minnesota has 4 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and yield to the
distinguished gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a
colloquy and thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman Oberstar, I rise to discuss an issue that is of critical
importance to my district. At 1:39 a.m. on January 18, 2002, a Canadian
Pacific Railway freight train derailed in Minot, North Dakota. The
freight train derailed 31 freight cars, including 15 cars containing
anhydrous ammonia. As a result of this accident, the people of Minot
were exposed to the largest catastrophic release of anhydrous ammonia
in U.S. history. They were not at fault. They were sitting ducks in
their own homes.
After the area cleared, one individual, John Grabinger, had died, and
many, many others suffered injuries, including individuals who
sustained second degree burns to their skin. And many others are still
suffering from long-term permanent physical damage.
Some courts are ignoring congressional intent and denying Americans
grievously injured in railroad accidents their rights under State law,
even when it is undisputed that the cause of the accident was the
railroad's wrongdoing. By preempting State law, these courts are
leaving injured North Dakotans and others with no remedy at all, since
the Federal Railroad Safety Act itself does not provide a remedy or
cause of action for victims.
I just want to clarify with the chairman the intent of the language
found in section 3 on the first page of the manager's amendment. Is it
correct that this legislation clarifies that the Federal Rail Safety
Act of 1970 does not and was never intended to preempt State law claims
for damages?
Mr. OBERSTAR. That is correct. This clarifying language comes in
large part as a response to court opinions that have misapplied
principles of Federal preemption which has prevented people injured by
the negligent acts of railroads from being compensated. The bill does
not change any of the current law, but only adds to it to clarify the
meaning of what is already in public law.
Mr. POMEROY. It is my understanding that until 1993, there was no
question that State causes of actions were not preempted. The Supreme
Court then said they could be, under some circumstances, and some
courts since then have been broadening the railroads' immunity from
liability under the auspices of preemption. Congress tried before to
change the FRSA's preemptive scope, but courts didn't listen. Does this
language reflect the fact that Congress never intended preemption of
State causes of action?
Mr. OBERSTAR. That is correct.
Mr. POMEROY. While the bill accurately clarifies that State causes of
action are not preempted, will you continue to work with us to take the
steps necessary to ensure that courts construe this amendment only as a
clarification of Congress' original intent?
Mr. OBERSTAR. We will pursue this issue in future hearings of the
subcommittee of relevance.
Mr. POMEROY. Is it also your understanding that the same Federal
court that dismissed those claims urged the Congress to remedy this
situation and the language in section 3 does precisely what the court
said needed to be done?
[[Page H3110]]
Mr. OBERSTAR. The situation that needs to be cured is not that the
statute preempts negligence claims requires a change. The situation
needing remedy is the misinterpretation of the statute by some courts.
That is precisely what this clarifying language is intended to
accomplish. This matter will be further reviewed as we proceed with
reauthorization of the Federal Rail Safety Act in our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and I would look forward to
continuing to work with the gentleman from North Dakota, the Chair of
the subcommittee, and ranking member of the subcommittee to address the
judicial interpretation.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the chairman.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I wish I could have come to the floor today and supported this
measure, because rail and transit security are extremely important and
it is one of our most important responsibilities as representatives of
the people. People are working hard, trying to make a living, raise
their families. They send us here to know the facts. And I can tell
you, the facts are that this bill was done in haste, particularly the
manager's amendment. It is a great example for the House of
Representatives and the majority, the new majority and the minority.
Because when you subvert and do not conduct yourself in the process
that the Founding Fathers had envisioned, a bipartisan approach to
crafting legislation, you get yourself tied up in these little knots.
Now they are finding flaws in this legislation left and right,
deregulating State traffic and railroads. They are scurrying around
trying to figure out how are we going to fix this.
This is not the way to do the people's business, particularly on an
important issue like security. So I will go home and tell people why I
voted against this. Many others can go home and say, I voted $7 billion
or $8 billion of your money for rail and transit security. But what did
it do? Unfortunately, it didn't do the job we need to do in the
situation we find ourselves in with terrorist threats and what we have
seen in the rest of the world. We are abdicating our responsibility.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have worked very vigorously in our
committee over decades to achieve the bipartisanship, and we have done
so. But I think the gentleman is a little misguided in his recitation
of history, because there were the Federalists and the Democrats at the
outset and they didn't do much bipartisanship at the beginning of this
Congress of ours.
I just refer to section 3 of the manager's amendment, line 2: No
Preemption of State Law. Nothing in section 20106 of title 49 U.S. Code
preempts a State cause of action, or any damages recoverable in such an
action, et cetera. So, in fact, the preemptive language specifically
recognizes that existing law preempts positive laws, regulation, or
orders by executive or legislative branch officials, expressly address
railroad safety or security. And, not to be concerned, we will address
the broader issue as we go forward with the rail safety authorization.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 1401, The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act
of 2007, of which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation will
make long overdue security improvements to the rail, transit, and
surface transportation systems in our nation.
In the last 80 years there have been over 900 attacks on public
transportation systems around the world. In recent history, the
horrific attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai have been unfortunate
reminders that we must do more to secure our Nation's transportation
systems. For too long, our country has not done enough to improve the
security of our transportation systems. In fact President Bush's fiscal
year 2007 budget proposal included $41.4 million in the Transportation
Security Administration budget for surface transportation security,
less than 1 percent of the TSA budget. Clearly the past level of
funding has been inadequate to address the security of the surface
transportation system. I am very pleased that H.R. 1401 authorizes
three grant programs that will make more funds available to enhance the
security of rail, public transportation and over-the-road systems.
The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 requires rail
and public transportation systems to submit vulnerability assessments
and security plans to the Department of Homeland Security. Each system
is then placed into a risk tier, those in medium and high risk tiers
have to have Department of Homeland Security approval for their
security plans. Each transportation system will then employ security
measures to address the type and degree of risk they face. This
approach will help increase the security of our transportation systems,
while allowing them the flexibility to adopt measures that meet their
needs.
I am particularly pleased that the Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act of 2007 requires that rail and public transportation
systems provide their employees with adequate training. This training
requirement will enable employees to respond efficiently to prevent
potential terrorist attacks and to minimize the damage and loss of life
if an attack does occur. I am also pleased that this legislation
establishes a rail and public transportation security exercise program
so that systems can practice and perfect their responses to potential
attacks.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill.
As events over the last several years have shown, we ignore rail and
transit security at our peril. Since 2004, terrorist cells have
conducted successful and deadly bombings on major passenger rail
systems in Spain (2004), the United Kingdom (2005), and India (2006),
with 450 people killed and 2,800 wounded. We know al Qaeda and like-
minded groups desire to repeat such attacks here in America. We also
know that our rail and transit systems need more money to help deter
such threats.
For example, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
estimates that since 9/11, our government has invested $7.53 in
aviation security improvements per passenger boarding, but only $0.008
(less than one penny) in public transportation security improvements
per passenger boarding. This security investment disparity has been
allowed to persist for years, despite the fact that every weekday, more
than 14 million people use public transportation, and more than 25
million passengers ride Amtrak each year.
In New Jersey alone, NJ Transit--the third largest statewide transit
agency--has stated that it has only 220 police officers to protect
400,000 customers per day (265,000 bus and 135,000 rail), 10,500
employees at multiple locations, 800 trains on more than 1,000 miles of
track, 161 rail stations, and 49 light rail stations. Additionally,
these same officers must protect and secure more than 2,000 buses that
use more than 20,800 bus stops.
In 2004, the APTA outlined $6 billion in needs for transit agency
security-related investments. A 2002 Government Accountability Office
study of just eight transit systems that had completed security
assessments found that needed upgrades would cost at least $700
million.
The Congress took a positive step last year when it raised rail and
transit security funding from $150 million to $175 million. However, if
we are to prevent the tragedies that occurred in Madrid, London, and
Mumbai from being repeated in America, we must act now to ensure that
our local transit providers have the resources they need to protect the
millions of Americans who rely on rail service. Fortunately, Congress
is now taking additional steps to address this problem.
The bill before us today authorizes three separate security grant
programs: one each for rail security, public transportation security,
and over-the-road bus security. More than $5.8 billion would be
authorized for these grants through 2011. If fully funded, these
programs would help us close major security gaps in our rail and
transit systems. Similar grant programs for firefighters and other
first responders have helped local jurisdictions--including several in
my own district--to upgrade their response capabilities. I look forward
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure
the money to support these new grant programs is there from day one.
Additionally, this bill mandates a range of additional measures
designed to improve rail and transit security, including vulnerability
assessments and regular security exercises to test the ability of rail
and transit systems to spot and defeat potential threats to the
traveling public. One of the chief lessons of the Hurricane Katrina
debacle is that Federal, State, and local governments, along with the
relevant private sector partners, must regularly test our collective
response system to detect and fix problems before a real incident
occurs. Regular exercises and the lessons learned from them must be
implemented in a timely fashion. Creating a system that
institutionalizes such a process is vital.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased we're finally beginning to address our rail
and transit security needs in a systematic way, and I urge my
colleagues to support passage of this bill.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1401, the
Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. This bill calls
for necessary funding and emergency
[[Page H3111]]
planning to protect the American rail system and other critical points
of our Nation's infrastructure.
I support H.R. 1401 because I have seen the chaos that can ensue when
a disaster occurs. I was in New York City on 9/11, and I saw firsthand
what can happen when we are improperly prepared for a terrorist attack
or natural disaster. The entire world saw in New Orleans that without
planning and foresight, the aftermath a disaster can be even worse than
the disaster itself. This bill will require a national plan to prepare
for rail and public transportation emergencies.
This bill will also provide grant funding dedicated to rail and
public transportation security. Included in these grants will be $100
million over the next 4 years to improve security in six New York City
tunnels. Anybody who has traveled through these tunnels, as much as I
have, will know this funding is critical.
In addition to providing direct funding for emergency prevention,
this bill will require training programs to teach employees of public
transportation systems how to prevent and prepare for a terrorist
attack, and how to respond to such an attack. And it will go further,
by establishing programs which will test how well the transportation
systems have prepared for such an attack.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1401 is a wide ranging bill that touches on a
number of critical infrastructure points in the United States. For
example, currently our Nation has only 100 surface transportation
inspectors. This bill will increase that number to 600 over the next 3
years.
In addition to providing grants for localities to secure their
infrastructure, this bill will help prevent attacks that we haven't
even thought of yet. $200 million in this bill will go towards research
and development that is intended to plan for and prevent terrorist
attacks.
Mr. Chairman, millions of Americans from coast to coast rely upon
public transportation every day. Our people deserve as much safety as
we can provide for them. We cannot predict when a terrorist attack or
natural disaster will occur, and we cannot always prevent these from
happening. However, we have also seen that the better prepared we are,
and the more we have planned, the better we can address these problems.
H.R. 1401 will go a long way towards helping us minimize the impact of
a terrible disaster. I strongly support it and urge my colleagues to
offer their support as well.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
discuss H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of
2007.
Securing our Nation's rail and public transportation systems has long
been a priority for the Homeland Security Committee.
However, many different competing priorities elbowed this issue out
of the way as we faced growing concern about border and port security.
Our Committee addressed these issues head-on under the leadership of
Ranking Member--then Chairman--Peter King, and made great strides in
securing our homeland.
However, attacks in London and Madrid are stark illustrations of the
urgency with which Congress must address rail and mass transit
security.
H.R. 1401 requires transportation providers to conduct vulnerability
assessments and implement security plans.
The bill also mandates security training for transportation workers.
These steps are crucial in bringing rail and mass transit security up
to par to the level of airports and seaports.
I also appreciate that our Committee adopted several amendments I
offered during our makrup.
Transportation workers will now have to undergo a background check
that will look at both criminal history and current immigration status.
We cannot afford to give criminals and terrorists the access to our
secure sites.
The American people do not understand or accept such a risk, and nor
do I.
My other amendment specified that some of the new training exercises
take place at the border.
We have all heard rumblings over the last few years about criminal
gang activity, particularly along the Southern border.
It makes sense to have a portion of training dedicated to an area
with a high risk.
However, I must express my disappointment that the Rules Committee
did not make in order my amendment to better secure sensitive
information from Freedom of Information Act Requests.
I fear without this additional language, security plans and risk
assessment criteria could easily fall into the wrong hands.
Further, I have grave concerns about the amount of money we are
spending in the bill without these protections.
The American people would not thank us for all of our work in
airports or seaports if something happens to a major rail or subway
carrier.
I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for their
tireless work on this bill and for working with me on my amendments.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to congratulate my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for producing bipartisan
legislation to address the security weaknesses in our rail and mass
transit systems and to ensure that strong whistleblower protections are
provided to our front-line rail and mass transit security workers.
One area that has been largely overlooked since September 11th is the
security associated with shipments of extremely hazardous materials on
the roads and railways of our country.
Every day tank cars pass through our urban centers carrying enough
chlorine to kill 100,000 people in half an hour. Some of these
shipments must travel the routes they are currently using. But others
could easily be safely re-routed to avoid population centers and other
sensitive areas.
We already know that these chemicals are attractive terrorist
targets. Just a few weeks ago, several deadly attacks in Iraq involved
improvised explosive devices that included canisters of deadly chlorine
gas, and a planned attack involving a truck full of chlorine was foiled
this past weekend.
The risk is not just an overseas risk either. Several years ago, an
Ohio-based al Qaeda operative was arrested and pled guilty for plotting
to collapse a bridge in New York City or derail a train in DC.
Earlier this year, reporter Carl Prine at the Pittsburgh Tribune
wrote a scathing expose on the state of rail insecurity in our country.
He was able to walk right into rail yards with tanker cars containing
some of the deadliest chemicals on earth. No one stopped him--he had no
problem getting his hands on these deadly chemical tanks.
We're lucky that--this time--it was a journalist and not a jihadist
who penetrated these rail yards.
Whether it's an accident or an al Qaeda attack, we need to make the
shipments of deadly chemicals more secure.
The language in this bill that I authored and that was agreed to on a
bipartisan basis builds upon the recent Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
issued by the Department of Transportation and the TSA.
It requires rail carriers to analyze the routes and storage
facilities for security sensitive materials as part of the security
plans that they must submit for approval to the Department of Homeland
Security. Then it requires the rail carriers to select the route and
storage facilities that best reduce the risk and consequences of a
terrorist attack on a shipment of these materials as they travel
through or near high threat urban areas and other areas that DHS thinks
need special security protections.
The language in this bill doesn't apply to all hazardous materials--
just the ones that pose the greatest threat, such as chlorine or
propane. Most assessments put this at less than 1 percent of all
shipments.
This bill also doesn't require re-routing to occur if there is no
practical alternative route. Rail carriers will only be required to re-
route when a more secure route is available.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this bi-partisan effort. Now is
the time to upgrade the security for these toxic shipments so none of
our constituents are ever exposed to a catastrophic chemical release
simply because we failed to take these simple steps.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 1401
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Sec. 101. National strategy for rail and public transportation
security.
Sec. 102. Assignment of providers of covered transportation to risk-
based tiers.
Sec. 103. Rail and public transportation assessments and plans.
Sec. 104. Information sharing plan.
Sec. 105. Rail security assistance.
Sec. 106. Public transportation security assistance.
Sec. 107. Over-the-road bus security assistance.
Sec. 108. Fire and life safety improvements.
Sec. 109. Security training program.
Sec. 110. Security exercises.
[[Page H3112]]
Sec. 111. Security research and development.
Sec. 112. Whistleblower protections.
Sec. 113. Increase in surface transportation security inspectors.
Sec. 114. National domestic preparedness consortium.
Sec. 115. Authorization of Visible Intermodal Protection Response
Teams.
Sec. 116. National Transportation Security Center of Excellence.
Sec. 117. TSA personnel limitations.
Sec. 118. Homeland security grants.
Sec. 119. Threat assessment screening.
Sec. 120. Background checks for covered individuals.
Sec. 121. Task force on disqualifying crimes.
Sec. 122. Penalties.
Sec. 123. School bus transportation security.
Sec. 124. Enhanced security measures for shipments of security
sensitive materials.
Sec. 125. Technology standards and clearinghouse to improve security of
covered transportation.
Sec. 126. Rail tank car security testing.
Sec. 127. Rail radiological and nuclear detection.
Sec. 128. Requirement to provide preference to qualified anti-terrorism
technologies.
Sec. 129. Promoting liability protections for providers of covered
transportation and related technologies.
Sec. 130. International rail security program.
Sec. 131. Terrorist watchlist and immigration status review at high-
risk transportation sites.
TITLE II--SECURE TRANSPORTATION THROUGH INCREASED USE OF CANINE
DETECTION TEAMS
Sec. 201. Increasing the number of canine detection teams for
transportation security.
Sec. 202. National explosives detection canine team program increase.
Sec. 203. Transportation security administration breeding program
increase.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' has the meaning that
term has in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101) and includes the Committees on Homeland Security
and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(2) Appropriate stakeholders.--The term ``appropriate
stakeholders'' means--
(A) providers of covered transportation;
(B) organizations representing providers of covered
transportation;
(C) nonprofit employee labor organizations representing
railroad, public transportation, or over-the-road bus
workers;
(D) shippers of hazardous material;
(E) manufacturers of railroad and transit cars;
(F) State departments of transportation, regional agencies,
and metropolitan planning organizations;
(G) public safety officials;
(H) law enforcement and fire service officials; and
(I) other relevant persons.
(3) Covered transportation.--The term ``covered
transportation'' means transportation provided by a railroad
carrier, a provider of public transportation, or an over-the-
road bus.
(4) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(5) Designated recipient.--The term ``designated
recipient'' has the meaning that the term has in section
5307(a) of title 49, United States Code.
(6) Provider of covered transportation.--The term
``provider of covered transportation'' means--
(A) with respect to transportation provided by a railroad
carrier, the railroad carrier;
(B) with respect to public transportation, the public
transportation designated recipient providing the
transportation; and
(C) with respect to transportation provided by an over-the-
road bus, the private operator.
(7) Over-the-road bus.--The term ``over-the-road bus''
means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck
located over a baggage compartment.
(8) Public transportation.--The term ``public
transportation'' has the meaning that term has in section
5302(a) of title 49, United States Code.
(9) Railroad.--The term ``railroad'' has the meaning that
term has in section 20102 of title 49, United States Code.
(10) Railroad carrier.--The term ``railroad carrier'' has
the meaning that term has in section 20102 of title 49,
United States Code.
(11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
(12) State.--The term ``State'' means any one of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and any other territory or possession of the United States.
(13) Terrorism.--The term ``terrorism'' has the meaning
that term has in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).
(14) Transportation.--The term ``transportation'', as used
with respect to an over-the-road-bus, means the movement of
passengers or property by an over-the-road-bus.
(A) in the jurisdiction of the United States between a
place in a State and a place outside the State (including a
place outside the United States); or
(B) in a State that affects trade, traffic, and
transportation described in subparagraph (A).
(15) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the
50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and any other territory or possession of the United
States.
TITLE I--RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
SEC. 101. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR RAIL AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) Modal Plan.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall develop and implement
the modal plan for covered transportation as required by
section 114(t)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code. The
modal plan shall be entitled the ``National Strategy for Rail
and Public Transportation Security'' and shall include, at a
minimum--
(1) a description of the roles, responsibilities, and
authorities of Federal, State, and local agencies, government
sponsored entities, tribal governments, and appropriate
stakeholders under the plan;
(2) identification of, and a plan to address, gaps and
unnecessary overlaps in the roles, responsibilities, and
authorities described in paragraph (1);
(3) a methodology for how the Department will work with the
entities described in paragraph (1), and make use of existing
Federal expertise within the Department, the Department of
Transportation, and other appropriate agencies;
(4) a process for providing security clearances to
facilitate intelligence and information sharing with the
entities described in paragraph (1);
(5) a description of--
(A) how the Department has reviewed terrorist attacks on
covered transportation throughout the world in the last 25
years;
(B) the lessons learned from those reviews; and
(C) how those lessons are being used in current and future
efforts to secure covered transportation;
(6) a strategy and timeline for the Department, the
Department of Transportation, other appropriate Federal
agencies and private entities to research and develop new
technologies for securing covered transportation;
(7) measurable goals, including objectives, mechanisms, and
a schedule for enhancing the security of covered
transportation;
(8) a framework for resuming the operation of covered
transportation in the event of an act of terrorism and
prioritizing resumption of such operations;
(9) a description of current and future public outreach and
educational initiatives designed to inform the public on how
to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from a
terrorist attack on covered transportation; and
(10) a process for coordinating covered transportation
security strategies and plans, including the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan required by Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 7; Executive Order: Strengthening
Surface Transportation Security dated December 5, 2006; the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and the
Department of Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities
dated September 28, 2004; the Annex to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department and the Department of
Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities concerning
railroad security dated September 28, 2006, and the Annex to
the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and
the Department of Transportation on Roles and
Responsibilities concering Public Transportation Security
dated September 8, 2005.
(b) Adequacy of Existing Plans and Strategies.--Nothing in
this section shall prevent the Secretary from using existing
plans and strategies, including those developed or
implemented pursuant to section 114(t) of title 49, United
States Code, or Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7,
in meeting the requirements of subsection (a).
SEC. 102. ASSIGNMENT OF PROVIDERS OF COVERED TRANSPORTATION
TO RISK-BASED TIERS.
(a) Assignment.--The Secretary shall assign each provider
of covered transportation to one of the not less than three
risk-based tiers established by the Secretary.
(b) Provision of Information.--The Secretary may request,
and the provider of covered transportation shall provide,
information necessary for the Secretary to assign a provider
of covered transportation to the appropriate tier under
subsection (a).
(c) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date a
provider of covered transportation is assigned to a tier
under this section, the Secretary shall notify the provider
of the tier to which the provider is assigned and the reasons
for such assignment.
(d) High- and Medium-Risk Tiers.--At least two of the tiers
established by the Secretary under this section shall be
tiers designated for high- and medium-risk providers of
covered transportation.
SEC. 103. RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENTS AND
PLANS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue regulations
that--
(1) require each provider of covered transportation
assigned to a high- or medium-risk tier under section 102--
(A) to conduct a vulnerability assessment in accordance
with subsections (b) and (c); and
(B) to prepare, submit to the Secretary for approval, and
implement a security plan in accordance with this section
that addresses security performance requirements under
subsection (f); and
[[Page H3113]]
(2) establish standards, and guidelines for vulnerability
assessments under subsection (c) and security plans under
subsection (d) and for developing and implementing such
security plans.
(3) establish a security program for providers of covered
transportation not assigned to a high- or medium-risk tier
under section 102, including a process for providers to
conduct vulnerability assessments and prepare and implement
security plans, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(b) Deadline for Submission.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of issuance of the regulations under subsection (a),
the vulnerability assessments and security plans required by
such regulations for a provider of covered transportation
assigned to a high- or medium-risk tier shall be completed
and submitted to the Secretary for review and approval.
(c) Vulnerability Assessments.--
(1) Requirements.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall provide technical
assistance and guidance to providers of covered
transportation in conducting vulnerability assessments under
this section and shall require that each vulnerability
assessment of a provider of covered transportation assigned
to a high- or medium-risk tier under section 102 include, at
a minimum--
(A) identification and evaluation of critical covered
transportation assets and infrastructures of the provider,
including platforms, stations, bus and intermodal terminals,
tunnels, bridges, switching and storage areas, and
information systems;
(B) identification of the threats to those assets and
infrastructures;
(C) identification of the security weaknesses of the
covered transportation in--
(i) physical security;
(ii) passenger and cargo security;
(iii) programmable electronic devices, computers, or other
automated systems which are used in providing the
transportation;
(iv) alarms, cameras, and other protection systems;
(v) communications systems, including dispatching services
and mobile service equipment systems, to provide access to
emergency services in underground fixed guideway systems;
(vi) utilities;
(vii) emergency response planning;
(viii) employee training; and
(ix) such other matters as the Secretary determines
appropriate; and
(D) identification of redundant and backup systems required
to ensure the continued operations of critical elements of
the covered transportation in the event of an attack or other
incident, including disruption of commercial electric power
or communications network.
(2) Threat information.--A provider of covered
transportation conducting a vulnerability assessment under
this section shall incorporate in the assessment any threat
information provided by the Secretary and other sources.
(d) Security Plans.--
(1) Requirements.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall provide technical
assistance and guidance to providers of covered
transportation in preparing and implementing security plans
under this section and shall require that each security plan
of each provider of covered transportation assigned a high-
or medium-risk under section 102 include, at a minimum--
(A) identification of a security coordinator having
authority--
(i) to implement security actions under the plan;
(ii) to coordinate security improvements described in
sections 105, 106, and 107; and
(iii) to receive immediate communications from appropriate
Federal officials regarding covered transportation security;
(B) plans for periodic exercises under section 110 that
include participation by local law enforcement agencies and
emergency responders as appropriate;
(C) a list of needed capital and operational improvements
such as those described in sections 105, 106, and 107;
(D) procedures to be implemented or used by the provider in
response to a terrorist attack, including evacuation and
passenger communication plans that include individuals with
disabilities;
(E) identification of steps taken with State and local law
enforcement agencies, emergency responders, and Federal
officials to coordinate security measures and plans for
response to a terrorist attack;
(F) a strategy and timeline for conducting training under
section 109, including recurrent training and periodic
unannounced exercises for employees of the provider to be
carried out under the plan to prevent, prepare for, or
respond to a terrorist attack;
(G) enhanced security measures to be taken by the provider
when the Secretary declares a period of heightened security
risk;
(H) plans for redundant and backup systems required to
ensure the continued operation of critical covered
transportation elements of the provider in the event of a
terrorist attack or other incident;
(I) plans for locating, including by covert electronic
devices, shipments of railroad cars transporting security
sensitive materials or nuclear waste so that, if the assets
are lost or stolen, the provider or law enforcement
authorities may locate, track, and recover the assets;
(J) a strategy for implementing enhanced security for
shipments of security sensitive materials under section 124;
and
(K) such other actions or procedures as the Secretary
determines are appropriate to address the covered
transportation security of the provider to a terrorist
attack.
(2) Security coordinator requirements.--The Secretary shall
require that the individual serving as the security
coordinator identified in paragraph (1)(A) is a citizen of
the United States. The Secretary may waive this requirement
with respect to an individual if the Secretary determines
that it is appropriate to do so based on a background check
of the individual and a review of terrorist watch lists to
ensure that the individual is not identified on any such
terrorist watch list.
(3) Consistency with other plans.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
ensure that each security plan under this section is
consistent with the requirements of the National Strategy for
Rail and Public Transportation Security described in section
101.
(e) Provided by Secretary.--The Secretary shall provide, in
a timely manner to the maximum extent practicable under
applicable authority and in the interest of national
security, to the provider of the covered transportation
threat information that is relevant to the provider when
preparing and submitting vulnerabilities and security plans,
including an assessment of the most likely method that could
be used by terrorists to exploit weaknesses in the covered
transportation security and the likelihood of success by such
terrorists.
(f) Security Performance Requirements.--The Secretary
shall, by regulation, establish security performance
requirements for the security plans required for providers of
covered transportation. The regulations shall--
(1) require separate and increasingly stringent security
performance requirements for security plans as the level of
risk associated with the tier increases; and
(2) permit each provider of covered transportation
submitting a security plan to select a combination of
security measures that satisfy the security performance
requirements established by the Secretary under this
subsection.
(g) Deadline for Review Process.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of the issuance of the regulations under
subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall--
(1) review each vulnerability assessment and security plan
submitted to the Secretary in accordance with subsection (b);
(2) require amendments to any security plan that does not
meet the requirements of this section, including the
regulations issued under subsection (a);
(3) approve any vulnerability assessment or security plan
that meets the requirements of this section, including such
regulations; and
(4) review each security plan periodically thereafter.
(h) Interim Security Measures.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
require, during the period before the deadline established
under subsection (b), each provider of covered transportation
required to submit a security plan under subsection (b) to
implement any necessary interim security measures to deter,
mitigate, and respond to, to the maximum extent practicable,
a transportation security incident with respect to the
covered transportation or a substantive threat of such an
incident until the security plan of the provider is approved.
(i) Nondisclosure of Information.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
require the disclosure of a vulnerability assessment or a
security plan of a provider of covered transportation to the
extent that such information is exempted from mandatory
disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Other obligations unaffected.--Nothing in this section
shall affect any obligation of the provider of covered
transportation to submit or make available information to
covered transportation employees, nonprofit employee labor
organizations, or a Federal, State, or local government
agency under, or otherwise to comply with, any other law.
(3) Submission of information to congress.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing the withholding of
any information from Congress.
(4) Disclosure of independently furnished information.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any
authority or obligation of a Federal agency to disclose any
record or information that the Federal agency obtains from a
provider of covered transportation under any other law.
(j) Penalties.--
(1) Administrative penalties.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may impose an administrative
penalty of not more than $100,000 for failure to comply with
this section, including regulations issued under subsection
(a).
(B) Notice and opportunity to request hearing.--Before
imposing a penalty under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall provide to the person against whom the penalty is to be
imposed--
(i) written notice of the proposed penalty; and
(ii) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the person receives the notice, a
hearing on the proposed penalty.
(C) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations
establishing the procedures for administrative hearings and
appropriate review of penalties imposed under this Act,
including deadlines.
(2) Civil penalties.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may bring an action in a
United States district court against any provider of covered
transportation that violates or fails to comply with this
Act, including regulations issued under subsection (a), or a
security plan approved by the Secretary under this section.
(B) Relief.--In any action under this Act, a court may
issue an order for injunctive relief and may impose a civil
penalty of not more than $75,000 for each day on which a
violation occurs or a failure to comply continues.
(3) Criminal penalties.--A provider of covered
transportation who intentionally violates
[[Page H3114]]
this section, including regulations issued under subsection
(a), shall be fined not more than $50,000 for each day of
such violation, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or
both.
(k) Existing Procedures, Protocols and Standards.--
(1) Determination.--In response to a petition by a provider
of covered transportation or at the discretion of the
Secretary, the Secretary may recognize existing procedures,
protocols, and standards of a provider of covered
transportation that the Secretary determines to meet all or
part of the requirements of this section, including
regulations issued under subsection (a), regarding
vulnerability assessments and security plans.
(2) Election.--Upon review and written determination by the
Secretary that existing procedures, protocols, or standards
of a provider of covered transportation satisfy all of the
requirements of this section, including regulations issued
under subsection (a), the provider may elect to comply with
those procedures, protocols, or standards instead of the
requirements of this section.
(3) Partial approval.--If the Secretary determines that the
existing procedures, protocols, or standards of a provider of
covered transportation satisfy only part of the requirements
of this section, including regulations issued under
subsection (a), the Secretary may accept those submissions,
but shall require submission by the provider of any
additional information relevant to vulnerability assessments
and security plans of the provider to ensure that the
remaining requirements of this section are fulfilled.
(4) Notification.--If the Secretary determines that
particular existing procedures, protocols, or standards of a
provider of covered transportation under this subsection do
not satisfy the requirements of this section, including
regulations issued under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
provide to such provider a written notification that includes
an explanation of the reasons why the determination could not
be made.
(5) Review.--Nothing in this subsection shall relieve the
Secretary of the obligation--
(A) to review the vulnerability assessment and security
plan submitted by a provider of covered transportation under
this section; and
(B) to approve or disapprove each submission on an
individual basis.
(l) Periodic Review by Provider of Covered Transportation
Required.--
(1) Submission of review.--Not later than 3 years after the
date on which a vulnerability assessment or security plan
required to be submitted to the Secretary under subsection
(b) is submitted, and at least once every 5 years thereafter
(or on such a schedule as the Secretary may establish by
regulation), the provider of covered transportation who
submitted the vulnerability assessment or security plan shall
also submit to the Secretary a review of the adequacy of the
vulnerability assessment or security plan that includes a
description of any material changes made to the vulnerability
assessment or security plan.
(2) Review of review.--Not later than 180 days after the
date on which a review is submitted, the Secretary shall
review the review and notify the provider of covered
transportation submitting the review of the Secretary's
approval or disapproval of such review.
(m) Shared Facilities.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, may permit under this
section the development and implementation of coordinated
vulnerability assessments and security plans to the extent 2
or more providers of covered transportation have shared
facilities (such as tunnels, bridges, or stations, or
facilities) that are geographically close or otherwise co-
located.
(n) Ferry Exemption.--This section does not apply to any
ferry system for which a vulnerability assessment and
security plan is required pursuant to chapter 701 of title
46, United States Code.
(o) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees regarding the
feasibility of implementing name-based checks against
terrorist watch lists for all National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ``Amtrak''
passengers.
SEC. 104. INFORMATION SHARING PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall develop and submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a railroad, public
transportation, and over-the-road bus information sharing
plan to ensure the development of both tactical and strategic
intelligence products pertaining to the threats and
vulnerabilities to covered transportation for dissemination
to Federal, State, and local agencies, tribal governments,
and appropriate stakeholders.
(b) Content of Plan.--The plan submitted under subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) a description of how intelligence analysts in the
Transportation Security Administration are coordinating with
other intelligence analysts in the Department and other
Federal, State, and local agencies;
(2) reasonable deadlines for the completion of any
organizational changes within the Department to accommodate
implementation of the plan; and
(3) a description of resource needs for fulfilling the
plan.
(c) Updates.--
(1) Certification of implementation.--After the plan is
submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall certify
to the appropriate congressional committees when the plan has
been implemented.
(2) Annual reports.--After the Secretary provides the
certification under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
provide a report to the appropriate congressional committees
each year thereafter on the following:
(A) The number and brief description of each railroad,
public transportation, and over-the-road bus intelligence
report created and disseminated under the plan.
(B) The classification of each report as tactical or
strategic.
(C) The numbers of different government, law enforcement,
and public or private sector partners who the Department
provided with each intelligence product.
(d) Annual Surveys.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual
survey of the satisfaction of each of the recipients of
railroad, public transportation, and over-the-road bus
intelligence reports created and disseminated under the plan
and include the results of the survey as part of the
corresponding annual report provided under subsection (c)(2).
(e) Classification of Material.--To the greatest extent
possible, the Department shall provide appropriate
stakeholders with information in an unclassified format.
(f) Security Clearances.--The Department shall assist the
appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal
authorities, in addition to appropriate stakeholders, in
obtaining the security clearances needed to receive
classified covered transportation security information as
necessary if this information cannot be disseminated in an
unclassified format.
SEC. 105. RAIL SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall establish a program for
making grants to eligible entities for security improvements
described in subsection (b).
(b) Uses of Funds.--A recipient of a grant under this
section shall use the grant funds for one or more of the
following:
(1) Perimeter protection systems, including access control,
installation of improved lighting, fencing, and barricades at
railroad facilities.
(2) Technologies to reduce the vulnerability of rail cars.
(3) Passenger railroad station security redevelopment and
capital improvement projects that the Secretary determines
enhance rail station security.
(4) Security improvements to passenger railroad stations
and other railroad transportation infrastructure.
(5) Tunnel protection systems.
(6) Evacuation improvements.
(7) Inspection technologies, including verified visual
inspection technologies using hand-held readers and discs.
(8) Communications equipment, including equipment that is
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies and
tribal governments.
(9) Chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive
detection, including canine patrols for such detection.
(10) Surveillance equipment.
(11) Cargo or passenger screening equipment.
(12) Railroad inspection facilities and related
infrastructure at United States international borders,
including additional side railroad track necessary for
passenger and freight train inspection.
(13) Emergency response equipment, including fire
suppression and decontamination equipment, personal
protective equipment, and defibrillators.
(14) Global positioning or tracking and recovery equipment.
(15) Redundant critical operations control systems.
(16) Operating and capital costs associated with security
awareness, preparedness, and response training, including
training under section 109 and training developed by
universities and institutions of higher education and by
nonprofit employee labor organizations, for front-line
railroad employees.
(17) Live or simulated exercises described in section 110.
(18) Overtime reimbursement for additional security
personnel during periods of heightened security as determined
by the Secretary.
(19) Public awareness campaigns for enhanced rail security.
(20) Operational costs for personnel assigned to full-time
security or counterterrorism duties related to rail
transportation.
(21) Such other security improvements as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(c) Security Improvement Priorities.--In establishing
guidelines for applications for grants under this section,
the Secretary shall establish a list in order of priority
regarding uses of funds for grant recipients under this
section.
(d) Multiyear Awards.--Pursuant to this section, the
Secretary may issue multi-year grants for not longer than a
5-year period.
(e) Letters of Intent.--
(1) Issuance.--The Secretary may issue a letter of intent
to a recipient of a grant under this section, to commit
funding from future budget authority of an amount, not more
than the Federal Government's share of the project's cost,
for a capital improvement project.
(2) Schedule.--The letter of intent under this subsection
shall establish a schedule under which the Secretary will
reimburse the recipient for the Federal Government's share of
the project's costs, as amounts become available, if the
recipient, after the Secretary issues that letter, carries
out the project without receiving amounts under a grant
issued under this section.
(3) Notice to secretary.--A recipient that has been issued
a letter of intent under this section shall notify the
Secretary of the recipient's intent to carry out a project
before the project begins.
(4) Notice to congress.--The Secretary shall transmit to
the appropriate congressional committees a written
notification at least 3 days before the issuance of a letter
of intent under this subsection.
[[Page H3115]]
(5) Limitations.--A letter of intent issued under this
subsection is not an obligation of the Federal Government
under section 1501 of title 31, United States Code, and the
letter is not deemed to be an administrative commitment for
financing. An obligation or administrative commitment may be
made only as amounts are provided in authorization and
appropriations laws.
(6) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to prohibit the obligation of amounts pursuant
to a letter of intent under this section in the same fiscal
year as the letter of intent is issued.
(f) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Eligible entities for a grant under this
section may include State, local, and tribal governmental
entities, Amtrak, infrastructure owners, including railroad
carriers, private entities, and public-private entities, or
their designees.
(2) Project eligibility.--A recipient of a grant under this
section may use grant funds only for permissible uses under
subsection (b) to further a rail security plan developed,
submitted to, and approved by the Secretary.
(g) Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a grant for a project under this section shall be for 80
percent of the net cost of the project.
(2) Small project exception.--If a grant under this section
is for a project with a net cost of $25,000 or less, the
Federal share for the grant shall be for 100 percent of such
cost.
(3) National security exception.--If the Secretary
determines, upon written notice to the appropriate
congressional committees, that a higher Federal share for a
grant under this section is necessary to respond to an urgent
threat to national security, the Secretary may increase the
Federal share for the grant to up to 100 percent of the net
cost of the project.
(4) Applicability.--This subsection shall only apply to
freight rail carriers.
(h) Subject to Certain Standards.--The Secretary shall
require a recipient of a grant under this section and section
108 to comply with the standards of section 24312 of title
49, United States Code, as in effect on January 1, 2007, with
respect to the project in the same manner as Amtrak is
required to comply with such standards for construction work
financed under an agreement made under section 24308(a) of
that title.
(i) Limitation on Uses of Funds.--A grant made under this
section may not be used--
(1) to supplant State or local funds; and
(2) to make any State or local government cost-sharing
contribution under any other law.
(j) Annual Reports.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall report annually to the Secretary on the use of
grant funds.
(k) Guidelines.--Before distribution of funds to recipients
of grants under this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue guidelines
to ensure that recipients of grants under this section use
small, minority, women-owned, or disadvantaged businesses as
contractors or subcontractors to the extent practicable.
(l) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall be responsible for
monitoring the manner in which the grants are used.
(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary $600,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2011 for making grants under this section.
(2) Period of availability.--Sums appropriated to carry out
this section shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 106. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall establish a program for
making grants to an eligible public transportation designated
recipient for security improvements described in subsection
(b).
(b) Uses of Funds.--A recipient of a grant under subsection
(a) shall use the grant funds for one or more of the
following:
(1) Perimeter protection systems, including access control,
installation of improved lighting, fencing, and barricades.
(2) Security improvements to stations and other public
transportation infrastructure.
(3) Tunnel protection systems.
(4) Evacuation improvements.
(5) Inspection technologies, including verified visual
inspection technologies using hand-held readers and discs.
(6) Communications equipment, including mobile service
equipment to provide access to emergency services in an
underground fixed guideway system.
(7) Chemical, biological, or radiological or explosive
detection, including canine patrols for such detection.
(8) Surveillance equipment.
(9) Emergency response equipment, including fire
suppression and decontamination equipment, personal
protective equipment, and defibrillators.
(10) Global positioning or tracking and recovery equipment.
(11) Redundant critical operations control systems.
(12) Live or simulated exercises described in section 110.
(13) Public awareness campaigns for enhanced public
transportation security.
(14) Operating and capital costs associated with security
awareness, preparedness, and response training, including
training under section 109 and training developed by
universities and institutions of higher education and by
nonprofit employee labor organizations, for front-line public
transportation employees.
(15) Overtime reimbursement for additional security
personnel during periods of heightened security as determined
by the Secretary.
(16) Operational costs for personnel assigned to full-time
security or counterterrorism duties related to public
transportation.
(17) Such other security improvements as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(c) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Eligible entities for a grant under this
section may include public transportation agencies and State,
local, and tribal governmental entities that provide security
or counterterrorism related services to public
transportation.
(2) Project eligibility.--A recipient of a grant under this
section may use grant funds only for permissible uses under
subsection (b) to further a public transportation security
plan developed, submitted to, and approved by the Secretary.
(d) Security Improvement Priorities.--In establishing
guidelines for applications for grants under this section,
the Secretary shall establish a list in order of priority
regarding uses of funds for grant recipients under this
section.
(e) Subject to Certain Terms and Conditions.--Except as
otherwise specifically provided in this section, a grant
provided under this section shall be subject to the terms and
conditions applicable to a grant made under section 5307 of
title 49, United States Code, under effect on January 1,
2007, and such other terms and conditions as are determined
necessary by the Secretary.
(f) Limitation on Uses of Funds.--Grants made under this
section may not be used--
(1) to supplant State or local funds; and
(2) to make any State or local government cost-sharing
contribution under any other law.
(g) Annual Reports.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall report annually to the Secretary on the use of
the grant funds.
(h) Guidelines.--Before distribution of funds to recipients
of grants under this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue guidelines
to ensure that recipients of grants under this section use
small, minority, women-owned, or disadvantaged businesses as
contractors or subcontractors to the extent practicable.
(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall be responsible for
monitoring the manner in which the grants are used.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to make grants under this section--
(A) $775,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(B) $825,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(C) $880,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
(D) $880,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(2) Period of availability.--Sums appropriated to carry out
this section shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 107. OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall establish a program for
making grants for eligible private operators providing
transportation by an over-the-road bus for security
improvements described in subsection (b).
(b) Uses of Funds.--A recipient of a grant received under
subsection (a) shall use the grant funds for one or more of
the following:
(1) Constructing and modifying terminals, garages,
facilities, or over-the-road buses to increase their
security.
(2) Protecting or isolating the driver of an over-the-road
bus.
(3) Acquiring, upgrading, installing, or operating
equipment, software, or accessorial services for collection,
storage, or exchange of passenger and driver information
through ticketing systems or otherwise and for information
links with government agencies.
(4) Installing cameras and video surveillance equipment on
over-the-road buses and at terminals, garages, and over-the-
road bus facilities.
(5) Establishing and improving an emergency communications
system linking drivers and over-the-road buses to the
recipient's operations center or linking the operations
center to law enforcement and emergency personnel.
(6) Implementing and operating passenger screening programs
for weapons and explosives.
(7) Public awareness campaigns for enhanced over-the-road
bus security.
(8) Operating and capital costs associated with security
awareness, preparedness, and response training, including
training under section 109 and training developed by
universities and institutions of higher education and by
nonprofit employee labor organizations, for front-line over-
the-road bus employees.
(9) Chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive
detection, including canine patrols for such detection.
(10) Overtime reimbursement for additional security
personnel during periods of heightened security as determined
by the Secretary.
(11) Live or simulated exercises described in section 110.
(12) Operational costs for personnel assigned to full-time
security or counterterrorism duties related to over-the-road
bus transportation.
(13) Such other improvements as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Eligible entities for a grant under this
section may include over-the-road bus providers and State,
local, and tribal governmental entities that provide security
or counterterrorism related services to over-the-road bus
providers.
(2) Project eligibility.--A recipient of a grant under this
section may use grant funds only for permissible uses under
subsection (b) to further an over-the-road bus security plan
developed, submitted to, and approved by the Secretary.
(d) Security Improvement Priorities.--In establishing
guidelines for applications for grants under this section,
the Secretary shall establish a list in order of priority
regarding uses of funds for grant recipients under this
section.
[[Page H3116]]
(e) Subject to Certain Terms and Conditions.--Except as
otherwise specifically provided in this section, a grant made
under this section shall be subject to the terms and
conditions applicable to subrecipients who provide intercity
bus transportation under section 5311(f) of title 49, United
States Code, and such other terms and conditions as are
determined necessary by the Secretary.
(f) Limitation on Uses of Funds.--A grant made under this
section may not be used to--
(1) supplant State or local funds for activities; and
(2) make any State or local government cost-sharing
contribution under any other law.
(g) Annual Reports.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall report annually to the Secretary and the
Secretary of Transportation on the use of such grant funds
(h) Guidelines.--Before distribution of funds to recipients
of grants under this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue guidelines
to ensure that recipients of grants under this section use
small, minority, women-owned, and disadvantaged businesses as
contractors or subcontractors to the extent practicable.
(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall be responsible for
monitoring the manner in which the grants are used.
(j) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to make grants under this section--
(A) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(B) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
(2) Period of availability.--Sums appropriated to carry out
this section shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 108. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for
making grants to Amtrak, for the purpose of carrying out
projects to make fire and life safety improvements to Amtrak
tunnels on the Northeast Corridor the following amounts:
(1) For the 6 tunnels in New York City, New York, to
provide ventilation, electrical, and fire safety technology
improvements, emergency communication and lighting systems,
and emergency access and egress for passengers--
(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(B) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
(D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(2) For the Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel and the Union Tunnel
in Baltimore, Maryland, to provide adequate drainage and
ventilation, communication, lighting, standpipe, and
passenger egress improvements--
(A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(B) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(C) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
(D) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(3) For the Union Station tunnels in the District of
Columbia to provide ventilation, communication, lighting, and
passenger egress improvements--
(A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(B) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(C) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
(D) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(b) Availability of Amounts.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to this section shall remain available until expended.
(c) Guidelines.--Before distribution of funds to recipients
of grants under this section, the Secretary of Transportation
shall issue guidelines to ensure that recipients of grants
under this section use small, minority, women-owned, or
disadvantaged businesses as the contractors or subcontractors
to the extent practicable.
SEC. 109. SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall--
(1) develop security training programs to prepare all
railroad, public transportation, and over-the-road bus
workers, including front-line employees for potential threat
conditions; and
(2) issue detailed guidance for the program.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall develop the guidance
under subsection (a)(2) in consultation with--
(1) appropriate law enforcement, fire service, security,
and terrorism experts;
(2) representatives of providers of covered transportation;
and
(3) nonprofit employee labor organizations representing
railroad, public transportation, over-the-road bus workers,
and fire fighter workers.
(c) Program Elements.--The guidance developed under
subsection (a)(2) shall require security training programs
described in subsection (a) to include, at a minimum,
elements to address the following:
(1) Determination of the seriousness of any occurrence or
threat.
(2) Crew and passenger communication and coordination.
(3) Appropriate responses to defend oneself, including
using nonlethal defense devises.
(4) Evacuation procedures for passengers and workers,
including individuals with disabilities.
(5) Live situational training exercises regarding various
threat conditions, including tunnel evacuation procedures.
(6) Recognition and reporting of dangerous substances and
suspicious packages, persons, and situations.
(7) Understanding security incident procedures, including
procedures for communicating with governmental and
nongovernmental emergency response providers and for on-scene
interaction with such emergency response providers.
(8) Operation and maintenance of security equipment and
systems.
(9) Any other subject the Secretary considers appropriate.
(d) Required Programs.--
(1) Development and submission to secretary.--Not later
than 60 days after the Secretary issues guidance under
subsection (a)(2) in final form, each provider of covered
transportation shall develop a security training program in
accordance with the guidance developed under subsection (2)
and submit the program to the Secretary for approval.
(2) Approval.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a
security training program under this subsection, the
Secretary shall approve the program or require the provider
of covered transportation that developed the program to make
any revisions to the program that the Secretary considers
necessary for the program to meet the guidance requirements.
(3) Training.--Not later than 1 year after the Secretary
approves a security training program under this subsection,
the provider of covered transportation that developed the
program shall complete the training of all workers covered
under the program.
(4) Updates.--The Secretary shall periodically review and
update as appropriate the training guidance issued under
subsection (a)(2) to reflect new or changing security threats
and require providers of covered transportation to revise
their programs accordingly and provide additional training to
their workers.
(e) National Training Program.--The Secretary shall ensure
that the training program developed under subsection (a) is a
component of the National Training Program established under
section 648 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 748).
(f) Ferry Exemption.--This section does not apply to any
ferry system for which training is required to be conducted
pursuant to section 70103 of title 46, United States Code.
SEC. 110. SECURITY EXERCISES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall establish a program for
conducting security exercises for covered transportation for
the purpose of assessing and improving the capabilities of
entities described in subsection (b) to prevent, prepare for,
mitigate against, respond to, and recover from acts of
terrorism involving covered transportation.
(b) Covered Entities.--Entities to be assessed under the
program shall include--
(1) Federal, State, and local agencies and tribal
governments;
(2) employees and managers of providers of covered
transportation;
(3) governmental and nongovernmental emergency response
providers and law enforcement personnel, including railroad
and transit police; and
(4) any other organization or entity that the Secretary
determines appropriate.
(c) Requirements.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall ensure that the program--
(1) consolidates all existing security exercises for
covered transportation administered by the Department and the
Department of Transportation;
(2) requires, on a periodic basis, at the facilities a
provider of covered transportation, exercises to be conducted
that are--
(A) scaled and tailored to the needs of the facilities,
including individuals with disabilities;
(B) live, in the case of the most at-risk facilities to a
terrorist attack;
(C) coordinated with appropriate officials of covered
transportation providers;
(D) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk
assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences; and
(E) consistent with the National Incident Management
System, the National Response Plan, the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan, the National Preparedness
Guidance, the National Preparedness Goal, and other such
national initiatives;
(3) provides that exercises described in paragraph (2) will
be--
(A) evaluated against clear and consistent performance
measures;
(B) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be shared
with appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal officials,
governmental and nongovernmental emergency response
providers, law enforcement personnel, including railroad and
transit police, and appropriate stakeholders; and
(C) followed by remedial action in response to lessons
learned;
(4) includes exercises involving covered transportation at
or near the international land borders of the United States
and in coordination with international stakeholders;
(5) involves individuals in neighborhoods around the
infrastructure of a provider of covered transportation; and
(6) assists State, local, and tribal governments and
providers of covered transportation in designing,
implementing, and evaluating exercises that conform to the
requirements of paragraph (2).
(d) Remedial Action Management Program.--The
Secretary shall utilize the remedial action management
program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to--
(1) identify and analyze each exercise conducted under the
program for lessons learned and best practices;
(2) disseminate lessons learned and best practices to
participants in the program;
(3) monitor the implementation of lessons learned and best
practices by participants in the program; and
(4) conduct remedial action tracking and long-term trend
analysis.
(f) National Training Program.--The Secretary shall ensure
that the training program developed under subsection (a) is a
component of the National Training Program established under
section 648 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 748).
[[Page H3117]]
(g) Ferry System Exemption.--This section does not apply to
any ferry for which drills are required to be conducted
pursuant to section 70103 of title 46, United States Code.
SEC. 111. SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Establishment of Research and Development Program.--The
Secretary shall carry out a research and development program
for the purpose of improving the security of covered
transportation.
(b) Eligible Projects.--The research and development
program may include projects--
(1) to reduce the vulnerability of passenger trains,
stations, and equipment to explosives and hazardous chemical,
biological, and radioactive substances including the
development of technology to screen passengers in large
numbers at peak commuting times with minimal interference and
disruption;
(2) to test new emergency response and recovery techniques
and technologies, including those used at international
borders;
(3) to develop improved freight railroad technologies,
including--
(A) technologies for sealing or modifying railroad tank
cars;
(B) automatic inspection of railroad cars;
(C) communication-based train controls;
(D) signal system integrity at switches;
(E) emergency response training, including training in a
tunnel environment;
(F) security and redundancy for critical communications,
electrical power, computer, and train control systems; and
(G) technologies for securing bridges and tunnels;
(4) to test wayside detectors that can detect tampering;
(5) to support enhanced security for the transportation of
security sensitive materials by railroad;
(6) to mitigate damages in the event of a cyberattack; and
(7) to address other vulnerabilities and risks identified
by the Secretary.
(c) Coordination With Other Research Initiatives.--The
Secretary shall--
(1) ensure that the research and development program is
consistent with the National Strategy for Rail and Public
Transportation Security developed under section 101; and
(2) to the greatest extent practicable, coordinate the
research and development activities of the Department with
other ongoing research and development security related
initiatives, including research being conducted by--
(A) the National Academy of Sciences;
(B) the Department of Transportation, including University
Transportation Centers and other institutes, centers, and
simulators funded by the Department of Transportation;
(C) the Technical Support Working Group;
(D) other Federal departments and agencies; and
(E) other Federal and private research laboratories,
research entities, and universities and institutions of
higher education including, Historically Black Colleges or
Universities, and Hispanic Serving Institution or Tribal
University, with the capability to conduct both practical and
theoretical research and technical systems analysis on
subjects that include bridge, tunnel, blast, and
infrastructure protection;
(3) carry out any research and development project
authorized by this section through a reimbursable agreement
with the appropriate agency or entity official, if the agency
or entity--
(A) is currently sponsoring a research and development
project in a similar area; or
(B) has a unique facility or capability that would be
useful in carrying out the project;
(4) award grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, other
transactions, or reimbursable agreements to the entities
described in subsection (c)(2) and shall adopt necessary
procedures, including audits, to ensure that awards made
under this section are expended in accordance with the
purposes of this title and the priorities and other criteria
developed by the Secretary; and
(5) make reasonable efforts to enter into memoranda of
understanding, contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or
other transactions with owners and operators of freight and
intercity passenger rail and over-the-road bus facilities
willing to contribute both physical space and other
resources.
(d) Privacy and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Issues.--
(1) Consultation.--In carrying out research and development
projects under this section, the Secretary shall consult with
the Chief Privacy Officer of the Department and the Officer
for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department as
appropriate and in accordance with section 222 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142).
(2) Privacy impact assessments.--In accordance with
sections 222 and 705 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 142; 345), the Chief Privacy Officer shall conduct
privacy impact assessments and the Officer for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties shall conduct reviews, as appropriate,
for research and development initiatives developed under this
section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this
section--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 112. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged,
demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded,
investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against,
including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a
security clearance or by any other security access
determination, if such discrimination is due, in whole or in
part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or
intended to be done by the covered individual--
(1) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a violation of any law, rule, or regulation
relating to rail, public transportation, or over-the-road-bus
security, which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a threat to rail, public transportation, or over-
the-road-bus security, or which the covered individual
reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste, or
mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for
rail, public transportation, or over-the-road-bus security,
if the information or assistance is provided to or the
investigation is conducted by--
(A) by a Federal, State, or local regulatory or law
enforcement agency (including an office of the Inspector
General under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
app.; Public Law 95-452);
(B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or
the Government Accountability Office; or
(C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered
individual (or such other person who has the authority to
investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct);
(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule,
or regulation relating to rail, public transportation, or
over-the-road bus security; or
(3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation relating to rail public
transportation, or over-the-road bus security.
(b) Enforcement Action.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge
or other discrimination by any person in violation of
subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c)--
(A) for covered individuals who are employees of the
Department or the Department of Transportation, by filing a
complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board;
(B) for contractors or subcontractors of the Department or
Department of Transportation, by filing a complaint with
their respective Inspector General;
(C) for all other covered individuals, by filing a
complaint with the Secretary of Labor; and
(D) if the Secretary of Labor, Merit System Protection
Board, or the respective Inspector General has not issued a
final decision not later than 180 days after the filing of
the complaint, or in the event that a final order or decision
is issued by the Secretary of Labor, Merit System Protection
Board, or the respective Inspector General, whether within
the 180-day period or thereafter, when, not later than 90
days after such an order or decision is issued, bringing an
original action at law or equity for de novo review in the
appropriate district court of the United States, which shall
have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the
amount in controversy, and then, at the request of either
party to such action, be tried by the court with a jury.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1) shall be
governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section
42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person
named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth
in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1)
shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the date on
which the violation occurs.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any
action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all
relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
(2) Damages.--Relief for an action under subsection (b)(1)
shall include remedies under subparagraphs (A) through (C)
and if appropriate, may include subparagraph (D) of such
subsection--
(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
covered individual would have had, but for the
discrimination;
(B) the amount of any backpay, with interest; and
(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees; and
(3) Possible relief.--Relief from an action under paragraph
(1) may include punitive damages in an amount not to exceed
the greater of 3 times the amount of any compensatory damages
awarded under this section or $5,000,000.
(d) Use of State Secrets Privilege.--If the Government, in
a court of competent jurisdiction, asserts as a defense the
privilege commonly referred to as the ``state secrets
privilege'' then--
(1) the parties will act expeditiously to settle the case
and the court shall grant the parties 60 days by which to
reach settlement of the pending matter to avoid disclosure of
any sensitive government information, including classified or
sensitive intelligence information. The parties may certify
to the court that settlement cannot be reached before the end
of the 60-day period;
(2) if the parties cannot settle the matter and the parties
continue to litigate the matter, the
[[Page H3118]]
parties and court shall apply special procedures in order to
protect classified or sensitive intelligence information in a
manner consistent with sections 1 through 10 of the
Classified Information and Procedures Act, and shall adhere
to the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.;
Public Law 96-456; 4 Stat. 2025); and
(3) if, in any action brought under subsection (b)(1), the
Government asserts the state secrets privilege and the
assertion of such privilege either is frivolous, without
merit, or is asserted and causes undue delay or hardship to
the plaintiff, or prevents the plaintiff from establishing a
prima facie case in support of the plaintiff's claim or from
rebutting an affirmative defense, then the court shall enter
judgment for the plaintiff and shall determine the relief to
be granted.
(e) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
employing a covered individual to commit an act prohibited by
subsection (a). Any person who willfully violates this
section by terminating or retaliating against any covered
individual who makes a claim under this section shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both.
(2) Reporting requirement.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the
enforcement of paragraph (1).
(B) Contents.--Each such report shall--
(i) identify each case in which formal charges under
paragraph (1) were brought;
(ii) describe the status or disposition of each such case;
and
(iii) in any actions under subsection (b)(1) in which the
covered individual was the prevailing party or the
substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any
formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if
not, the reasons therefor.
(f) No Preemption.--Nothing in this section preempts or
diminishes any other safeguards against discrimination,
demotion, discharge, suspension, threats, harassment,
reprimand, retaliation, or any other manner of discrimination
provided by Federal or State law.
(g) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this
section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges,
or remedies of any covered individual under any Federal or
State law or under any collective bargaining agreement. The
rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any
agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual''
means an employee of--
(A) the Department;
(B) the Department of Transportation;
(C) a contractor or subcontractor; and
(D) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)) and who is a
provider of covered transportation.
(2) Lawful.--The term ``lawful'' means not specifically
prohibited by law, except that, in the case of any
information the disclosure of which is specifically
prohibited by law or specifically required by Executive order
to be kept classified in the interest of national defense or
the conduct of foreign affairs, any disclosure of such
information to any Member of Congress, committee of Congress,
or other recipient authorized to receive such information,
shall be deemed lawful.
(3) Contractor.--The term ``contractor'' means a person who
has entered into a contract with the Department, the
Department of Transportation, or a provider of covered
transportation.
(4) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
(A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(A) or (1)(B), an employee as defined by section 2105 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(B) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(A), (1)(B), or (1)(C) any officer, partner, employee, or
agent.
(5) Subcontractor.--The term ``subcontractor''--
(A) means any person, other than the contractor, who offers
to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials, equipment,
or services of any kind under a contract with the Department,
the Department of Transportation, or a provider of covered
transportation; and
(B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes
general supplies to the Federal contractor or a higher tier
subcontractor.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' means a corporation,
partnership, State entity, business association of any kind,
trust, joint-stock company, or individual.
SEC. 113. INCREASE IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
INSPECTORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall increase the total
number of positions for full-time surface transportation
security inspectors of the Department so that by December 31,
2010, the total number of such positions is at least 600.
(b) Qualifications.--Surface transportation security
inspectors hired by the Secretary shall have at least 1 year
or equivalent experience in conducting inspections and
investigations and engaging in testing security systems and
any other qualifications that the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(c) Roles and Responsibilities.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and
appropriate State, local, and tribal officials, shall develop
a standard operating procedure clearly defining the
relationship between--
(1) surface transportation security inspectors of the
Department and safety inspectors of the Department of
Transportation; and
(2) State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and
other law enforcement personnel, including railroad and
public transportation police.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection
(a) such sums as may be necessary. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 114. NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM.
(a) In General.--There is in the Department of Homeland
Security a National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.
(b) Members.--The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
that identifies, develops, tests, and delivers training to
State, local, and tribal emergency response providers,
provides onsite and mobile training at the performance and
management and planning levels, and facilitates the delivery
of awareness level training by the training partners of the
Department shall consist of--
(1) the Center for Domestic Preparedness;
(2) the National Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology;
(3) the National Center for Biomedical Research and
Training, Louisiana State University;
(4) the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training
Center, Texas A&M University;
(5) the National Exercise, Test, and Training Center,
Nevada Test Site; and
(6) the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo,
Colorado.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary--
(1) to at least maintain the funding level of fiscal year
2007 for each member of the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium listed in subsection (b) in existence prior to the
inclusion of the Transportation Technology Center in the
Consortium; and
(2) in fiscal years 2008 through 2011, increase the funding
level for each member of the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium to not less than 3 percent of the amount made
available for the preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 115. AUTHORIZATION OF VISIBLE INTERMODAL PROTECTION
RESPONSE TEAMS.
The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration, is authorized to
develop Visible Intermodal Protection Response (referred to
in this section as ``VIPR'') teams designed to augment
security for any mode of transportation at any location
within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the
Secretary--
(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal
air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors,
canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;
(2) has the discretion to determine, consistent with
ongoing security threats, when a VIPR should be deployed, as
well as the duration of the deployment in coordination with
local security and law enforcement officials; and
(3) prior to deployments, shall consult with local security
and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the
VIPR Team is planned to deploy, to develop and agree upon the
appropriate operating protocols and in order to educate those
officials regarding the mission of the VIPR teams.
SEC. 116. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CENTER OF
EXCELLENCE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
National Transportation Security Center of Excellence at an
institution of higher education to conduct research and
education activities, and to develop or provide professional
security training, including the training of rail and public
transportation employees and rail and public transportation-
related professionals, with emphasis on utilization of
intelligent transportation systems, technologies, and
architectures.
(b) Criteria.--The Secretary shall designate the Center
according to the following selection criteria:
(1) The demonstrated commitment of the institution to
transportation security issues.
(2) The use of and experience with partnerships with other
institutions of higher education, Federal laboratories, or
other nonprofit laboratories.
(3) Capability to conduct both practical and theoretical
research and technical systems analysis.
(4) Utilization of intelligent transportation system
technologies and architectures.
(5) Ability to develop professional security training
programs.
(6) Capability and willingness to conduct education of
transportation security professionals.
(7) Such other criteria as the Secretary may designate.
(c) Consortium.--
(1) Experience.--The Consortium shall include universities
and institutions of higher education that have existing
transportation programs.
(2) Certain inclusions.--At least two of the consortium
colleges and universities associated with the National
Transportation Security Center of Excellence shall be an
Historically Black College or University, an Hispanic Serving
Institution, Tribal University, even if the primary
institution is one of the aforementioned institutions of
higher education.
(3) Degree program.--Of the universities selected under
paragraph (2), at least one shall have an established degree
and an advanced degree program in transportation studies.
(d) Training.--If the consortium does not include the
National Transit Institute, the Consortium shall work with
the National Transit Institute on training programs.
(e) Funding.--The Secretary shall provide such funding as
is necessary to the National Transportation Security Center
of Excellence established under subsection (a) to carry out
this section.
[[Page H3119]]
SEC. 117. TSA PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS.
Any statutory limitation on the number of employees in the
Transportation Security Administration does not apply to
employees carrying out this Act.
SEC. 118. HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, all grants
distributed for security-related purposes pursuant to this
Act, shall be administered on the basis of risk by the
Secretary as the lead Federal official on transportation
security.
SEC. 119. THREAT ASSESSMENT SCREENING.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall implement a threat assessment
screening program, including name-based checks against
terrorist watch lists and immigration status check, for all
employees of covered transportation, that is the same as the
threat assessment screening program required for facility
employees and longshoremen by the Commandant of the Coast
Guard under Coast Guard Notice USCG-2006-24189 (71 Fed. Reg.
25066 (Friday, April 28, 2006)).
SEC. 120. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR COVERED INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Background checks.--The term ``background check'' means
a check of the following:
(A) Relevant criminal history databases.
(B) In the case of an alien (as defined in the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)), the relevant
databases to determine the status of the alien under the
immigration laws of the United States.
(2) Covered individuals.--The term ``covered individual''
means an employee of--
(A) an employer, within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)), who is a
provider of covered transportation; or
(B) a contractor or subcontractor of such an employer.
(b) Redress Process.--If a provider of covered
transportation conducts background checks in order to satisfy
any rules, regulations, directives, or other guidance issued
by the Secretary to protect covered transportation from the
threat of terrorism, the provider of covered transportation
shall provide an adequate redress process.
(c) Standards for Redress Process.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each
provider of covered transportation implements a redress
process in accordance with subsection (b) for covered
individuals adversely impacted by a background check
described in subsection (b).
(2) Standards.--The redress process shall be modeled after
the appeals and waiver process established for hazmat drivers
and transportation workers at ports, as required by section
1515 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Components.--The redress process shall include the
following:
(A) A waiver process that will allow a covered individual
to demonstrate, through rehabilitation, or facts surrounding
the conviction or other mitigating factors, that the
individual is not a security risk.
(B) An appeal process during which a covered individual
will have an opportunity to demonstrate that the individual
does not have a disqualifying conviction either by--
(i) correcting outdated underlying court records;
(ii) proving mistaken identity; or
(iii) establishing that the conviction cannot serve as the
basis for an adverse employment decision in accordance with
the limitations contained in subsection (d).
(C) A proceeding providing an independent review.
(D) A process to ensure compliance with the requirements of
this section.
(4) Proceedings providing an independent review.--A covered
individual who requests a proceeding under paragraph (3)(C)
shall have the right to have waiver and appeal decisions
heard by an independent decisionmaker with the ability to
order reinstatement expeditiously or provide other remedy.
(5) Previous background checks.--A covered individual
subjected to and adversely affected by a background check
conducted by a provider of covered transportation (or a
contractor or subcontractor of such a provider), in the
period beginning on June 23, 2006, and ending on the date of
enactment of this Act, to satisfy any rules, regulations,
directives, or other guidance issued by the Secretary to
protect covered transportation from the threat of terrorism
shall have an immediate right to a proceeding with an
independent decisionmaker to determine if the adverse action
was in compliance with this section and shall have a right to
immediate reinstatement or other remedy if the background
check fails to comply with this section.
(d) Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any rule,
regulation, directive, or other guidance issued by the
Secretary regarding background checks of covered individuals
shall prohibit an employer from making an adverse employment
decision, including removal or suspension, with respect to a
covered individual based on--
(A) a felony conviction that occurred 7 or more years ago;
(B) a conviction of any offense for which the individual
was released from incarceration 5 or more years ago; or
(C) any felony not listed in section 1572.103 of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Exceptions.--The limitations contained in paragraph (1)
shall not apply to a covered individual who has been
convicted of any of the following:
(A) Treason (or conspiracy to commit treason).
(B) Espionage (or conspiracy to commit espionage).
(C) Sedition (or conspiracy to commit sedition).
(D) Any crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18, United
States Code (or conspiracy to commit such a crime).
(e) No Preemption of Federal or State Law.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as preempting a Federal, State, or
local law that requires criminal history background checks of
covered employees.
(f) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect the process for review established
under section 70105(c) of title 46, United States Code,
including regulations issued pursuant to such section.
SEC. 121. TASK FORCE ON DISQUALIFYING CRIMES.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a task
force to review the lists of crimes that disqualify
individuals from certain transportation-related employment
under current regulations of the Transportation Security
Administration and assess whether such lists of crimes are
accurate indicators of a terrorism security risk.
(b) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of
representatives of appropriate industries, including
representatives of nonprofit employee labor organizations,
and Federal agencies.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the task force shall transmit to the
Secretary and Congress a report containing the results of the
review, including recommendations for a common list of
disqualifying crimes and the rationale for the inclusion of
each crime on the list.
SEC. 122. PENALTIES.
(a) Regulations and Orders of the Secretary.--Section 114
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(u) General Civil Penalties and Enforcement of
Regulations and Orders of the Secretary of Homeland
Security.--
``(1) Application.--This subsection applies to the
enforcement of regulations prescribed, and orders issued, by
the Secretary of Homeland Security under a provision of
chapter 701 of title 46 and this title (other than chapter
449) (in this subsection referred to as an `applicable
provision of this title'). Penalties for violation of
regulations prescribed, and orders issued, by the Secretary
of Homeland Security under a provision of chapter 449 are
provided under chapter 463.
``(2) General civil penalties.--
``(A) Maximum civil penalties.--A person is liable to the
United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than
$10,000 for a violation of a regulation prescribed, or order
issued, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under an
applicable provision of this title.
``(B) Separate violations.--A separate violation occurs
under this paragraph for each day the violation continues.
``(3) Administrative imposition of civil penalties.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may
impose a civil penalty for a violation of a regulation
prescribed, or order issued, under an applicable provision of
this title. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall give
written notice of the finding of a violation and the penalty.
``(B) Civil actions to collect penalties.--In a civil
action to collect a civil penalty imposed by the Secretary
under this paragraph, the issues of liability and the amount
of the penalty may not be reexamined.
``(C) Exclusive jurisdiction of district courts.--
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the
district courts of the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction of a civil action involving a penalty that the
Secretary initiates if--
``(i) the amount in controversy is more than--
``(I) $400,000 if the violation was committed by a person
other than an individual or small business concern; or
``(II) $50,000 if the violation was committed by an
individual or small business concern;
``(ii) the action is in rem or another action in rem based
on the same violation has been brought; or
``(iii) another action has been brought for an injunction
based on the same violation.
``(D) Maximum civil penalties imposed by the secretary.--
The maximum civil penalty the Secretary may impose under this
paragraph is--
``(i) $400,000 if the violation was committed by a person
other than an individual or small business concern; or
``(ii) $50,000 if the violation was committed by an
individual or small business concern.
``(E) Notice and opportunity to request hearing.--Before
imposing a penalty under this section the Secretary shall
provide to the person against whom the penalty is to be
imposed--
``(i) written notice of the proposed penalty; and
``(ii) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the person receives the notice, a
hearing on the proposed penalty.
``(4) Compromise and setoff.--
``(A) Compromise.--The Secretary may compromise the amount
of a civil penalty imposed under this subsection.
``(B) Setoff.--The Government may deduct the amount of a
civil penalty imposed or compromised under this subsection
from amounts it owes the person liable for the penalty.
``(5) Investigations and proceedings.--The provisions set
forth in chapter 461 shall be applicable to investigations
and proceedings brought under this subsection to the same
extent that they are applicable to investigations and
proceedings brought with respect to aviation security duties
designated to be carried out by the Secretary.
``(6) Nonapplication.--
[[Page H3120]]
``(A) Persons subject to penalties determined by the
secretary of defense.--Paragraphs (1) through (4) of this
subsection do not apply to the following persons, who shall
be subject to penalties as determined by the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary's designee:
``(i) The transportation of personnel or shipments of
materials by contractors where the Department of Defense has
assumed control and responsibility.
``(ii) A member of the Armed Forces of the United States
when performing official duties.
``(iii) A civilian employee of the Department of Defense
when performing official duties.
``(B) Postal service; department of defense.--In this
subsection, the term `person' does not include--
``(i) the United States Postal Service; or
``(ii) the Department of Defense.
``(7) Small business concern defined.--The term `small
business concern' has the meaning given that term in section
3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 46301(a)(4) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or another
requirement under this title administered by the Under
Secretary of Transportation for Security''.
SEC. 123. SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) School Bus Security Threat Assessment.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, a report,
including a classified report, as appropriate, containing a
comprehensive threat assessment of the threat of a terrorist
attack on the Nation's school bus transportation system in
accordance with the requirements of this section.
(b) Contents of Threat Assessment.--The assessment shall
include--
(1) an assessment of the Nation's school bus transportation
system, including publicly and privately operated systems;
(2) the security threats to the assets and systems;
(3) an assessment of actions already taken by operators to
address identified security vulnerabilities by both private
and publicly operated systems;
(4) an assessment of additional actions and investments
necessary to improve the security of the Nation's school
children traveling on school buses;
(5) an assessment of whether additional legislation or
Federal programs are needed to provide for the security of
children traveling on school buses; and
(6) an assessment of the psychological and economic impacts
of an attack on school buses.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the threat assessment, the
Secretary shall consult with administrators and officials of
school systems, representatives of the school bus industry,
including both public and privately operated systems, public
safety and law enforcement officials, and nonprofit employee
labor organizations representing school bus drivers.
SEC. 124. ENHANCED SECURITY MEASURES FOR SHIPMENTS OF
SECURITY SENSITIVE MATERIALS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue regulations to
require enhanced security measures for shipments of security
sensitive materials.
(b) Definitions.--
(1) Security sensitive material.--The Secretary shall
designate a material, or a group or class of material, in a
particular amount and form as security sensitive when the
Secretary determines that transporting the material in
commerce poses a significant risk to national security due to
the potential use of the material in an act of terrorism. In
making such a designation, the Secretary shall consider the
following:
(A) A highway route-controlled quantity of a Class 7
(radioactive) material, as defined in section 173.403 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, in a motor vehicle,
railcar, or freight container.
(B) More than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of a division 1.1,
1.2, or 1.3 of section 173.5 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations (explosive) material in a motor vehicle, rail
car, or freight container;
(C) More than one liter (1.06 quart) per package of a
material poisonous by inhalation, as defined in section 171.8
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, that meets the
criteria for hazard zone A, as specified in section
173.116(a) or section 173.133(a) of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(D) A shipment of a quantity of hazardous materials in a
bulk packaging having a capacity equal to or greater than
13,248 liters (3,500 gallons) for liquids or gases or more
than 13.24 cubic meters (68 cubic feet) for solids.
(E) A shipment in other than a bulk packaging of 2,268
kilograms (5,000 pounds) gross weight or more of one class of
hazardous materials for which placarding of a vehicle, rail
car, or freight container is required for that class under
the provisions of section 172.521B of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(F) A select agent or toxin regulated by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention under part 73 of title 42,
Code of Federal Regulations.
(G) A quantity of hazardous material that requires
placarding under the provisions of subpart F of part 172 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Area of concern.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``area of concern'' means a geographic region designated
by the Secretary as commanding special consideration with
respect to the security of the transportation of security
sensitive materials, which shall include high threat urban
areas as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Storage pattern.--The term ``storage pattern'' is
defined as the conditions of storage, including--
(A) location of cars in railyards or on railroad-controlled
leased tracks;
(B) type of storage (such as bulk transfer or not);
(C) typical types and numbers of security sensitive
material cars stored in close proximity (in ranges);
(D) population density;
(E) average length of time cars are stored, attended or
unattended; and
(F) security measures present, including physical security
measures, secure handoffs and nearest available safe havens
for storage in case of heightened threat conditions.
(4) Most secure.--The term ``most secure route or storage
pattern'' means the route or storage pattern that best
reduces the risk, including consequences, of a terrorist
attack on a shipment of security sensitive material that is
transported through or near an area of concern.
(c) Compilation of Route and Storage Pattern Information
for Rail Carriers Transporting Security Sensitive
Materials.--Not later than 90 days after the end of each
calendar year, a rail carrier shall compile commodity data by
route and storage pattern, a line segment or series of line
segments as aggregated by the rail carrier. Within the rail
carrier selected route, the commodity data shall identify the
geographic location of the route and storage pattern and the
total number of shipments by United Nations identification
number for security sensitive materials and storage patterns
along the routes.
(d) Rail Transportation Route and Storage Pattern Analysis
for Security Sensitive Materials.--For each calendar year, a
rail carrier shall provide a written analysis of the security
risks for the transportation routes and storage patterns,
identified in the commodity data collected as required by
subsection (c). The security risks present shall be analyzed
for the route, railroad facilities, railroad storage
facilities, private storage facilities, and areas of concern
along or in proximity to the route.
(e) Alternative Route and Storage Pattern Analysis for
Security Sensitive Materials.--
(1) By the end of each calendar year, a rail carrier
shall--
(A) identify to the Department practical alternative routes
and storage patterns that will avoid areas of concern for
each of the transportation routes or facilities it used to
ship or store security sensitive materials through or near
areas of concern in the last calendar year; and
(B) perform a security risk assessment of the alternative
route or storage pattern for comparison to the route and
storage pattern analysis specified in subsection (d).
(2) The analysis shall include the following:
(A) Identification of security risks for alternative route
or storage pattern.
(B) Comparison of those risks identified in subparagraph
(A) to the primary rail transportation route or storage
pattern.
(3) Rail carriers transporting security sensitive materials
must consider the availability of interchange agreements or
systems of tracks and facilities owned by other operators
when determining whether an alternate route for transporting
the security sensitive materials to avoid areas of concern is
practical.
(4) An alternate route or storage facility that will avoid
an area of concern may be considered by the rail carrier to
be impractical if the shipment originates in or is destined
for the area of concern, or if there would be no harm beyond
the property of the rail carrier transporting the shipment or
storage facility storing the shipment in the event of a
successful terrorist attack on the shipment.
(f) Alternative Route and Storage Pattern Selection for
Security Sensitive Materials.--A carrier shall use the
analysis required by subsections (d) and (e) to select the
most secure route and storage pattern to be used in moving
the materials specified in subsection (b).
(g) Review.--Not less than once every 5 years, the analyses
route and storage pattern selection determinations required
under subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) shall include a
comprehensive, system-wide review of all operational changes,
infrastructure modifications, traffic adjustments, changes in
the nature of the areas of concern located along or in
proximity to the route, or other changes affecting the
security of the movements of the materials specified in
subsection (b) of this section that were implemented during
the 5-year period.
SEC. 125. TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS AND CLEARINGHOUSE TO IMPROVE
SECURITY OF COVERED TRANSPORTATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology and the Director of the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (for radiological and
nuclear detection technologies and training), in consultation
with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and other appropriate Federal agencies, as
appropriate, shall establish a standards program to support
the development, promulgation, and updating as necessary of
national voluntary consensus standards for performance,
testing, use, and training with respect to technologies that
will improve the security of covered transportation in order
to meet the security plan requirements under section
103(d)(1) and the security performance requirements under
section 103(f).
(b) Equipment Standards.--
(1) Requirements.--The standards for the performance, use,
and validation of equipment developed under subsection (a)
shall be designed to assist Federal, State, local, and tribal
government and nongovernment emergency response providers,
other components of the Department,
[[Page H3121]]
providers of covered transportation, shippers of hazardous
material, manufacturers of railroad and transit cars,
transportation and public safety officials, and other
relevant stakeholders in acquiring and implementing
technologies to prevent, prepare for, mitigate against, and
respond to acts of terrorism on covered transportation. Such
standards--
(A) shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent
with any existing voluntary consensus standards;
(B) shall take into account, as appropriate, new types of
terrorism threats which may target covered transportation and
responsibilities of the Department that may not have been
contemplated when such existing standards were developed;
(C) shall focus on maximizing interoperability,
interchangeability, durability, flexibility, efficiency,
efficacy, portability, sustainability, and safety;
(D) shall facilitate deployment of the systems to the field
and include concept of operations;
(E) shall consider human factors science; and
(F) shall cover all appropriate uses of the equipment.
(2) Categories of equipment.--In carrying out paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall specifically consider national
voluntary consensus standards for the performance, use, and
validation of the following categories of equipment:
(A) Physical security equipment, including surveillance
cameras, alarm systems, access/intrusion control, motion
detection, barriers such as fences, impact resistant doors,
bomb-resistant trash receptacles, and personnel and vehicle
identification systems.
(B) Interoperable communications equipment, including
wireless and wireline voice, video, and data networks.
(C) Information technology, including position locating and
tracking systems.
(D) Cybersecurity equipment, including biometric
authentication systems, network and personal firewalls and
other authentication technologies.
(E) Personal protective equipment, including garments,
boots, gloves, and hoods and other protective clothing.
(F) Operational and search and rescue equipment, including
canines and scene control and safety equipment such as first
aid kits.
(G) Explosive mitigation devices and explosive detection
and analysis equipment.
(H) Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
detection equipment.
(I) Decontamination equipment.
(J) Noninvasive inspection and screening systems.
(K) Medical and pharmaceutical supplies.
(L) Other terrorism incident prevention equipment.
(M) Such other equipment for which the Secretary determines
that national voluntary consensus standards would be
appropriate to improve the security of covered
transportation.
(3) Certification and accreditation.--The Secretary, in
carrying out this subsection, and in coordination with the
Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, may support the certification of equipment and
the accreditation of laboratories to conduct testing and
evaluation.
(c) Training Standards.--
(1) Requirements.--The standards for the training developed
under subsection (a) shall be designed to enable Federal,
State, local, and tribal government and nongovernment
emergency response providers, other Department personnel,
providers of covered transportation, shippers of hazardous
material, manufacturers of railroad and transit cars,
transportation and public safety officials, and other
relevant stakeholders to use equipment effectively and
appropriately in carrying out their responsibilities to
secure covered transportation. Such standards shall
prioritize--
(A) enabling appropriate stakeholders to prevent, prepare
for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from terrorist
threats on covered transportation, including threats from
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and
explosive devices capable of inflicting significant human
casualties, and other potentially catastrophic emergencies;
and
(B) familiarizing appropriate stakeholders with the proper
use of equipment, including the capabilities and limitations
of equipment and conditions in which the equipment is
expected to operate.
(2) Categories of activities.--In carrying out paragraph
(1), the Secretary specifically shall include the following
categories of activities:
(A) Regional planning.
(B) Joint exercises.
(C) Information analysis and sharing.
(D) Decision making protocols for incident response and
alarms.
(E) Emergency notification of affected populations.
(F) Detection of biological, nuclear, radiological, and
chemical weapons of mass destruction.
(G) Screening and patrolling procedures.
(H) Such other activities for which the Secretary
determines that national voluntary consensus training
standards would be appropriate.
(3) Consistency.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall ensure that training standards are consistent
with the principles of all hazards emergency preparedness.
(d) Consultation With Standards Organizations.--In
establishing national voluntary consensus standards for
equipment and training under this section, the Secretary
shall consult with relevant public and private sector groups,
including--
(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
(2) the American Public Transportation Association;
(3) the National Fire Protection Association;
(4) the National Association of County and City Health
Officials;
(5) the Association of American Railroads;
(6) the American Bus Association;
(7) the Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials;
(8) the American National Standards Institute;
(9) the National Institute of Justice;
(10) the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization
and Interoperability;
(11) the National Public Health Performance Standards
Program;
(12) the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health;
(13) ASTM International;
(14) the International Safety Equipment Association;
(15) the Emergency Management Accreditation Program; and
(16) to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate,
other national voluntary consensus standards development
organizations, other interested Federal, State, and local
agencies, and other interested persons.
(e) Technology Clearinghouse to Enhance the Security of
Covered Transportation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall utilize the Technology
Clearinghouse established under section 313 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) to facilitate the
identification, acquisition, and deployment of technology,
equipment, and training for use by Federal, State, local, and
tribal agencies, emergency response providers, other
components of the Department, providers of covered
transportation, shippers of hazardous material, manufacturers
of railroad and transit cars, transportation and public
safety officials, and other relevant stakeholders to prevent,
prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, or recover from
acts of terrorism on covered transportation.
(2) Elements of the technology clearinghouse.--Activities
in carrying out paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) identifying available technologies that have been, or
are in the process of being, developed, tested, evaluated, or
demonstrated by the Department, other Federal agencies, the
private sector, or foreign governments and international
organizations, and reviewing whether such technologies may be
useful in assisting appropriate stakeholders to prevent,
prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, or recover from
acts of terrorism on covered transportation; and
(B) communicating to Federal, State, local, and tribal
agencies, emergency response providers, other components of
the Department, providers of covered transportation, shippers
of hazardous material, manufacturers of railroad and transit
cars, transportation and public safety officials, and other
relevant stakeholders the availability of such technologies,
as well as--
(i) the technology's specifications and concept of
operations;
(ii) satisfaction of appropriate equipment and training
standards developed under subsections (a) and (b);
(iii) relevant grants available from the Department to
purchase or train with such technologies; and
(iv) whether the Secretary has designated a product,
equipment, service, device, or technology under subparagraph
(A) as a qualified antiterrorism technology pursuant to the
Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 441 et seq.).
(3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
technology clearinghouse activities conducted through the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology are coordinated
with appropriate components of the Department including the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, the Transportation
Security Administration, the Office of Infrastructure
Protection, the Office of Grants and Training, and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(4) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into memoranda of
understandings or agreements with other Federal agencies,
foreign governments, and national and international
organizations as appropriate, in order to maximize the
availability of such technologies and information through the
Technology Clearinghouse.
SEC. 126. RAIL TANK CAR SECURITY TESTING.
(a) Rail Tank Car Vulnerability Assessment.--
(1) Assessment.--The Secretary shall assess the likely
methods of a deliberate attack against a rail tank car used
to transport toxic-inhalation-hazard materials, and for each
method assessed, the degree to which it may be successful in
causing death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human
health, the environment, critical infrastructure, national
security, the national economy, or public welfare.
(2) Threats.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall consider the most current threat information as to
likely methods of a successful attack on a rail tank car
transporting toxic-inhalation-hazard materials, and may
consider the following:
(A) An improvised explosive device placed along the tracks.
(B) An improvised explosive device attached to the rail
car.
(C) The use of shoulder-fired missiles.
(D) The use of rocket propelled grenades.
(E) The use of mortars or high-caliber weapons.
(3) Physical testing.--In developing the assessment
required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct
physical testing of the vulnerability of rail tank cars used
to transport toxic-inhalation-hazard materials to different
methods of a deliberate attack, using technical information
and criteria to evaluate the structural integrity of railroad
tank cars.
(4) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the completion of
the assessment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
provide to the appropriate congressional committees a report,
in the appropriate format, on such assessment.
[[Page H3122]]
(b) Rail Tank Car Dispersion Modeling.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the National
Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, shall conduct
air dispersion modeling analysis of a release of the contents
of a single rail tank car of toxic-inhalation-hazard
materials in at least three high-threat urban areas in the
United States.
(2) Considerations.--The analysis under this subsection
shall take into account the following considerations:
(A) A deliberate attack on a rail tank car transporting
toxic-inhalation-hazard materials, including the most likely
means of attack and the resulting dispersal rate.
(B) Different times of day, to account for differences in
population size and density in the urban area, as well as
differences in cloud coverage over the affected regions.
(C) Historically accurate wind speeds, temperatures and
directions.
(D) The difference between a rail tank car in motion and a
stationary rail tank car.
(E) Emergency response procedures by local officials,
including the availability of medical countermeasures to
treat exposures to toxic-inhalation-hazard materials.
(F) Any other considerations the Secretary believes would
develop an accurate, plausible dispersion model for toxic-
inhalation-hazard materials released from a rail tank car as
a result of a terrorist act.
(3) Consultation.--In conducting the dispersion modeling
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the
appropriate State, local, and tribal officials of the high-
threat urban area selected, and with other Federal agencies
as appropriate.
(4) Information sharing.--Upon completion of the analysis
required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall share the
information developed with the appropriate stakeholders
within each high-threat urban area selected, given
appropriate information protection provisions as may be
required by the Secretary.
(5) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of all
dispersion analyses under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
detailing the Secretary's conclusions and findings in an
appropriate format.
SEC. 127. RAIL RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR DETECTION.
(a) Prototype.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
shall begin testing and evaluation of prototype systems to
detect nuclear or radiological materials in rail security
venues, including spectroscopic technologies.
(b) Strategy.--Upon successful developmental testing and
evaluation of such radiation detection technologies at
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office test facilities, as well as
extensive testing and evaluation in operational environments,
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office shall, in coordination
with Customs and Border Protection and the Transportation
Security Administration, ensure appropriate training,
operations, and response protocols are established and, shall
develop a deployment strategy to detect nuclear or
radiological materials arriving in or transporting through
the United States by rail. Such strategy shall consider the
integration of radiation detection technologies with other
nonintrusive inspection technologies, including imagery and
density scanning, in order to utilize existing rail
examination facilities and further strengthen border
security.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 30, 2008,
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office shall transmit to
Congress a report. Such report shall--
(1) describe the progress of testing and evaluation under
subsection (a); and
(2) in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
and the Transportation Security Administration, describe the
development of a strategy under subsection (b).
(d) Implementation.--The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation
Security Administration shall begin implementation of the
strategy developed under subsection (b) after verification of
systems performance.
SEC. 128. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED
ANTI-TERRORISM TECHNOLOGIES.
In using grant funds provided under this Act to purchase
products, equipment, services, devices, or technologies to be
employed in the implementation of any security plan required
under this Act, a grant recipient shall, to the extent
practicable, give preference to products, equipment,
services, devices, and technologies that the Secretary has
designated as qualified anti-terrorism technologies under the
Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002 (subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002; 6 U.S.C. 441 et seq.), if the grant
recipient determines that such a product, equipment, service,
device, or technology meets or exceeds the requirements of
the security plan.
SEC. 129. PROMOTING LIABILITY PROTECTIONS FOR PROVIDERS OF
COVERED TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES.
The Secretary shall work with providers of covered
transportation to identify for procurement products,
equipment, services, devices, and technologies to be employed
in the implementation of security plans required under this
Act, that are designated by the Secretary as qualified anti-
terrorism technologies under the Support Anti-terrorism by
Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (subtitle G of
title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002; 6 U.S.C. 441
et seq.) or may otherwise be eligible for liability
protections.
SEC. 130. INTERNATIONAL RAIL SECURITY PROGRAM.
(a) Non-Intrusive Inspection Equipment.--For the purpose of
checking in-bound rail shipments to the United States for
undeclared passengers or contraband, including terrorists or
weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary
shall--
(1) deploy, where practicable, non-intrusive inspection
imaging equipment at locations where rail shipments cross an
international border to enter the United States; or
(2) implement alternative procedures to check such rail
shipments at locations where the deployment of non-intrusive
inspection imaging equipment is determined to not be
practicable.
(b) Advanced Filing of Security Data.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) identify and seek the submission of additional data
elements for improved high-risk targeting related to the
movement of cargo through the international supply chain
utilizing a railroad prior to importation into the United
States; and
(B) analyze the data provided pursuant to in paragraph (1)
to identify high-risk cargo for inspection.
(2) International supply chain defined.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term ``international supply chain''
means the end-to-end process for shipping goods to or from
the United States beginning at the point of origin (including
manufacturer, supplier, or vendor) through a point of
distribution to the destination.
SEC. 131. TERRORIST WATCHLIST AND IMMIGRATION STATUS REVIEW
AT HIGH-RISK TRANSPORTATION SITES.
The Secretary shall require each provider of covered
transportation, including contractors and subcontractors,
assigned to a high-risk tier under section 102 to conduct
checks of their employees against available terrorist
watchlists and immigration status databases.
TITLE II--SECURE TRANSPORTATION THROUGH INCREASED USE OF CANINE
DETECTION TEAMS
SEC. 201. INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CANINE DETECTION TEAMS FOR
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) Minimum Requirement.--The Secretary shall coordinate
with owners and providers of covered transportation systems
to ensure that canine detection teams are deployed at each
high-risk transportation system to provide continuous
coverage if the Secretary considers it necessary. Each canine
detection team--
(1) shall be trained to detect explosives, and, to the
greatest extent possible, chemical and biological weapons;
and
(2) may be deployed to alternate sites to provide
additional coverage during times of increased risk or due to
specific threat information, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Increase.--The Secretary shall coordinate with owners
and providers of covered transportation systems to increase
the number of trained canine detection teams deployed at the
Nation's high-risk rail and mass transit systems by not less
than 10 percent each fiscal year for fiscal years 2008
through 2012. Each canine detection team shall be trained to
detect explosives, and, to the greatest extent possible,
chemical and biological weapons.
SEC. 202. NATIONAL EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE TEAM PROGRAM
INCREASE.
(a) Increase in Teams.--The National Explosives Detection
Canine Team Program of the Transportation Security
Administration may train up to an additional 100 canine
detection teams per year but shall train at least the
following numbers of additional teams:
(1) 50 in fiscal year 2008.
(2) 55 in fiscal year 2009.
(3) 60 in fiscal year 2010.
(4) 66 in fiscal year 2011.
(5) 73 in fiscal year 2012.
(b) Deployed Throughout Country.--The canine detection
teams authorized under this section shall be deployed across
the country to strengthen the security of covered
transportation systems, including buses, subway systems,
ferries, and passenger rail carriers.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the personnel
and resource needs to fulfill the requirements of this
section.
(d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 203. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BREEDING
PROGRAM INCREASE.
(a) TSA Puppy Program.--The Transportation Security
Administration Puppy Program shall work to increase the
number of domestically bred canines to help meet the increase
in demand for canine detection teams authorized in section
202 while preserving the current quality of canines provided
for training.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House and the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a
report on the personnel and resource needs to fulfill the
requirements of this section.
(c) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except the amendments printed in House Report 110-74. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order
[[Page H3123]]
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent
of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
Section 2(2)(E), strike ``railroad and transit cars'' and
insert ``railroad cars, public transportation cars and buses,
and over-the-road buses''.
Section 2(6)(B), strike ``the public transportation
designated recipient providing the transportation'' and
insert `` the designated recipient''.
Section 2(14), strike the period after ``over-the-road
bus'' and insert ``--''.
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. 3. NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.
(a) No Preemption of State Law.--Nothing in section 20106
of title 49, United States Code, preempts a State cause of
action, or any damages recoverable in such an action,
including negligence, recklessness, and intentional
misconduct claims, unless compliance with State law would
make compliance with Federal requirements impossible. Nothing
in section 20106 of title 49, United States Code, confers
Federal jurisdiction of a question for such a cause of
action.
(b) Secretarial Power.--Section 20106 of title 49, United
States Code, preempts only positive laws, regulations, or
orders by executive or legislative branch officials that
expressly address railroad safety or security. The Secretary
and the Secretary of Transportation have the power to preempt
such positive enactments by substantially subsuming the same
subject matter, pursuant to proper administrative procedures.
Section 101(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 103, strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation,'' each place it appears, except subsection
(o).
Section 103(c)(1), strike ``high-or'' and insert ``high-
or''.
Section 103(e), strike ``vulnerabilities and security
plans''and insert ``a vulnerability assessment and security
plan''.
Section 103(k)(3)--
(1) strike ``those submissions'' and insert ``such
submission''; and
(2) strike ``vulnerability assessments and security plans''
and insert ``the vulnerability assessment and security
plan''.
Section 103(o), strike ``, hereinafter referred to as
`Amtrak' ''.
Section 104(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 105(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 105(b)(2), strike ``rail'' and insert ``railroad''.
Section 105(b)(3), strike ``redevelopment and''.
Section 105(b)(4), insert ``, including stations and other
railroad transportation infrastructure owned by State or
local governments'' before the period.
Section 105(b)(12) insert ``security'' before
``inspection'' each places it appears.
Section 105(b)(16), strike ``front-line railroad
employees'' and insert ``railroad employees, including front-
line employees''.
Strike section 105(c) and insert the following:
(c) Department of Homeland Security Responsibilities.--In
carrying out the responsibilities under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) determine the requirements for recipients of grants
under this section, including application requirements;
(2) pursuant to subsection (f), determine who are the
recipients of grants under this section;
(3) pursuant to subsection (b), determine the uses for
which grant funds may be used under this section;
(4) establish priorities for uses of funds for grant
recipients under this section; and
(5) not later than 5 business days after making
determinations under paragraphs (1) through (4), transfer
grant funds under this section to the Secretary of
Transportation for distribution to the recipients of grants
determined by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
Section 105--
(1) strike subsection (f);
(2) redesignate subsections (d) through (m) as subsections
(g) through (o), respectively;
(3) insert after subsection (c), as amended, the following:
(d) Department of Transportation Responsibilities.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall distribute grant funds
under this section to the recipients of grants determined by
the Secretary under subsection (f).
(e) Monitoring and Auditing.--The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation jointly shall
monitor and audit the use of funds under this section.
(f) Eligibility.--A railroad carrier is eligible for a
grant under this section if the carrier has completed a
vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan that
the Secretary has approved under section 103. Grant funds may
only be used for permissible uses under subsection (b) to
further a rail security plan.
Section 105(j), as redesignated (relating to standards)--
(1) strike ``The Secretary shall require a'' and insert
``A'';
(2) after ``108'' insert ``shall be required''; and
(3) strike ``Amtrak'' and insert ``the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation''.
Section 105(m), as redesignated (relating to guidelines)--
(1) strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(2) strike ``recipients of grants under this section'' the
first place it appears and insert ``, to the extent that
recipients of grants under this section use contractors or
subcontractors, such recipients''
Section 105 strike subsection (n), as redesignated.
Section 105, redesignate subsection (o), as redesignated,
as subsection (n).
Section 106, strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation,'' each place it appears.
Section 106(b)(2), insert ``, including stations and other
public transportation infrastructure owned by State or local
governments'' before the period.
Section 106(b)--
(1) redesignate paragraphs (10) through (17) as paragraphs
(11) through (18), respectively; and
(2) after paragraph (9) insert the following:
(10) Purchase and placement of bomb-resistant trash cans
throughout public transportation facilities, including subway
exits, entrances, and tunnels.
Section 106(b)(15), as redesignated--
(1) strike ``front-line'' before ``public''; and
(2) insert ``, including front-line employees'' after
``employees''.
Section 106(b)(16), as redesignated, after
``reimbursement'' insert ``, including reimbursement of
State, local, and tribal governments for costs,''.
Section 106(b)(17), as redesignated, after ``costs'' insert
``, including reimbursement of State, local, and tribal
governments for costs''.
At the end of section 106(b), strike paragraph (18), as
redesignated, and insert the following:
(18) Such other security improvements as the Secretary
considers appropriate, including security improvements for
newly completed public transportation systems that are not
yet operable for passenger use.
Section 106--
(1) strike subsections (c) and (d);
(2) redesignate subsections (e) through (j) as subsections
(g) through (l), respectively; and
(3) insert after subsection (b) the following:
(c) Department of Homeland Security Responsibilities.--In
carrying out the responsibilities under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) determine the requirements for recipients of grants
under this section, including application requirements;
(2) pursuant to subsection (f), determine who are the
recipients of grants under this section;
(3) pursuant to subsection (b), determine the uses for
which grant funds may be used under this section;
(4) establish priorities for uses of funds for grant
recipients under this section; and
(5) not later than 5 business days after making
determinations under paragraphs (1) through (4), transfer
grant funds under this section to the Secretary of
Transportation for distribution to the recipients of grants
determined by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
(d) Department of Transportation Responsibilities.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall distribute grant funds
under this section to the recipients of grants determined by
the Secretary under subsection (f).
(e) Monitoring and Auditing.--The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation shall jointly
monitor and audit the use of funds under this section.
(f) Eligibility.--A designated recipient is eligible for a
grant under this section if the recipient has completed a
vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan that
the Secretary has approved under section 103. Grant funds may
only be used for permissible uses under subsection (b) to
further a public transportation security plan.
Section 106, subsection (g), as redesignated (relating to
terms and conditions), strike ``under effect'' and insert
``as in effect''.
Section 106, subsection (j), as redesignated (relating to
guidelines), strike ``recipients of grants under this
section'' the first place it appears and insert ``, to the
extent that recipients of grants under this section use
contractors or subcontractors, such recipients shall''.
Section 106, strike subsection (k), as redesignated
(relating to monitoring).
Section 106, redesignate subsection (l), as redesignated
(relating to authorization of appropriations), as subsection
(k).
Section 107, strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation,'' each place it appears.
Section 107(b)(1), insert: ``, including terminals and
other over-the-road bus facilities
[[Page H3124]]
owned by State or local governments'' before the period.
Section 107(b)(8) strike--
(1) strike ``front-line'' before ``over-the-road''; and
(2) insert ``, including front-line employees'' after
``employees''.
Section 107(b)(10), after ``reimbursement'' insert
``including reimbursement of State, local, and tribal
governments for costs,''.
Section 107(b)(12), after ``costs'' insert ``, including
reimbursement of State, local, and tribal governments for
such costs.''.
Section 107--
(1) redesignate subsections (e) through (j) as subsections
(g) through (l ), respectively; and
(2) strike subsections (c) and (d) and insert the
following:
(c) Department of Homeland Security Responsibilities.--In
carrying out the responsibilities under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) determine the requirements for recipients of grants
under this section, including application requirements;
(2) pursuant to subsection (f), determine who are the
recipients of grants under this section;
(3) pursuant to subsection (b), determine the uses for
which grant funds may be used under this section;
(4) establish priorities for uses of funds for grant
recipients under this section; and
(5) not later than 5 business days of making determinations
under paragraphs (1) through (4), transfer grant funds under
this section to the Secretary of Transportation for
distribution to the recipients of grants determined by the
Secretary under paragraph (2).
(d) Department of Transportation Responsibilities.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall distribute grant funds
under this section to the recipients of grants determined by
the Secretary under subsection (f).
(e) Monitoring and Auditing.--The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation shall jointly
monitor and audit the use of funds under this section.
(f) Eligibility.--A private operator providing
transportation by an over-the-road bus is eligible for a
grant under this section if the operator has completed a
vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan that
the Secretary has approved under section 103. Grant funds may
only be used for permissible uses under subsection (b) to
further an over-the-road bus security plan.
Section 107, subsection (i), as redesignated (relating to
annual reports), after ``funds'' insert a period.
Section 107, subsection (j), as redesignated (relating to
guidelines), strike ``recipients of grants under this section
the first place it appears'' and insert ``to the extent that
recipients of grants under this section use contractors or
subcontractors, such recipients shall''.
Section 107, strike subsection (k) as redesignated
(relating to monitoring).
Section 107, redesignate subsection (l), as redesignated
(relating to authorization), as subsection (k).
Section 108(a), strike ``Amtrak'' the first place it
appears and insert ``the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation''.
Section 108(c) strike ``recipients of grants under this
section'' the first place it appears and insert ``, to the
extent that recipients of grants under this section use
contractors or subcontractors, such recipients shall''.
Section 109(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''
Section 109(a)(1), insert a comma after ``employees''.
Section 109(b)(3) strike ``and fire fighter workers'' and
insert ``or emergency response personnel''.
Section 109(c)(9), strike ``Any other subject'' and insert
``Other security training activities that''.
Section 109(d)(1), strike ``in final form''.
Section 109(d)(2), insert ``proposal'' after ``training
program''.
Section 109(d)(3), insert ``proposal'' after ``training
program''.
Section 109(d)(4), insert ``as necessary'' after
``workers''.
Section 110(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 110(c), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 110(c)(1), insert ``working jointly with the
Secretary of Transportation,'' before ``consolidates''.
Section 111(b)(3) strike ``freight''.
Section 111(b), strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6),
redesignate paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and insert the
following after paragraph (6):
(7) to assess the vulnerabilities and risks associated with
new rail and public transportation construction projects
prior to their completion; and
Section 111(c)(2)(E)--
(1) strike ``including,'' and insert ``, including''; and
(2) strike ``Institution or Tribal University'' and insert
``Institutions or Tribal Universities''.
Strike section 112 of the bill and insert the following
(and make all necessary technical and conforming changes):
SEC. 112. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged,
demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded,
investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against,
including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a
security clearance or by any other security access
determination, if such discrimination is due, in whole or in
part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or
intended to be done by the covered individual--
(1) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a violation of any law, rule, or regulation
relating to rail, public transportation, or over-the-road-bus
security, which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a threat to rail, public transportation, or over-
the-road-bus security, or which the covered individual
reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste, or
mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for
rail, public transportation, or over-the-road-bus security,
if the information or assistance is provided to or the
investigation is conducted by--
(A) by a Federal, State, or local regulatory or law
enforcement agency (including an office of the Inspector
General under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.; Public Law 95-452);
(B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or
the Government Accountability Office; or
(C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered
individual (or such other person who has the authority to
investigate, discover, or terminate);
(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule,
or regulation relating to rail, public transportation, or
over-the-road bus security; or
(3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation relating to rail public
transportation, or over-the-road bus security.
(b) Enforcement Action.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge
or other discrimination by any person in violation of
subsection (a) may--
(A) in the case of a covered individual who is employed by
the Department or the Department of Transportation, seek
relief in accordance with--
(i) the provisions of title 5, United States Code, to the
same extent and in the same manner as if such individual were
seeking relief from a prohibited personnel practice described
in section 2302(b)(8) of such title; and
(ii) the amendments made by section 112A;
except that, if the disclosure involved consists in whole or
in part of classified or sensitive information, clauses (i)
and (ii) shall not apply, and such individual may seek relief
in the same manner as provided by section 112B;
(B) in the case of a covered individual who is a contractor
or subcontractor of the Department or the Department of
Transportation, seek relief in accordance with section 112B;
and
(C) in the case of any other covered individual, seek
relief in accordance with the provisions of this section,
with any petition or other request for relief under this
section to be initiated by filing a complaint with the
Secretary of Labor.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(C) shall be
governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section
42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person
named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1)(C) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set
forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph
(1)(C) shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the
date on which the violation occurs.
(3) De novo review.--With respect to a complaint under
paragraph (1)(C), if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a
final decision within 180 days after the filing of the
complaint (or, in the event that a final order or decision is
issued by the Secretary of Labor, whether within the 180-day
period or thereafter, then, not later than 90 days after such
an order or decision is issued), the covered individual may
bring an original action at law or equity for de novo review
in the appropriate district court of the United States, which
shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to
the amount in controversy, and which action shall, at the
request of either party to such action, be tried by the court
with a jury.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any
action under subsection (b)(1)(C) shall be entitled to all
relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
(2) Damages.--Relief in an action under subsection
(b)(1)(C) (including an action described in subsection
(b)(3)) shall include--
(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
covered individual would have had, but for the
discrimination;
(B) the amount of any back pay, with interest; and
(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
(3) Possible relief.--Relief in an action under subsection
(b)(1)(C) may include punitive damages in an amount not to
exceed the greater of 3 times the amount of any compensatory
damages awarded under this section or $5,000,000.
[[Page H3125]]
(d) Use of State Secrets Privilege.--
(1) If, in any action for relief sought by a covered
individual in accordance with the provisions of subsection
(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C), the Government agency moves to
withhold information from discovery based on a claim that
disclosure would be inimical to national security by
asserting the privilege commonly referred to as the ``state
secrets privilege'', and if the assertion of such privilege
prevents the covered individual from establishing an element
in support of the covered individual's claim, the court shall
resolve the disputed issue of fact or law in favor of the
covered individual, provided that, in an action brought by a
covered individual in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (b)(1)(A) or (B), an Inspector General
investigation under section 112B has resulted in substantial
confirmation of that element, or those elements, of the
covered individual's claim.
(2) In any case in which the Government agency asserts the
privilege commonly referred to as the ``state secrets
privilege'', whether or not an Inspector General has
conducted an investigation with respect to the alleged
discrimination, the head of the Government agency involved
shall, at the same time it asserts the privilege, issue a
report to authorized Members of Congress, accompanied by a
classified annex if necessary, describing the reasons for the
assertion, explaining why the court hearing the matter does
not have the ability to maintain the protection of classified
information related to the assertion, detailing the steps the
agency has taken to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement
with the covered individual, setting forth the date on which
the classified information at issue will be declassified, and
providing all relevant information about the underlying
substantive matter.
(e) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
employing a covered individual described in subsection
(b)(1)(C) to commit an act prohibited by subsection (a). Any
person who willfully violates this section by terminating or
retaliating against any such covered individual who makes a
claim under this section shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(2) Reporting requirement.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the
enforcement of paragraph (1).
(B) Contents.--Each such report shall--
(i) identify each case in which formal charges under
paragraph (1) were brought;
(ii) describe the status or disposition of each such case;
and
(iii) in any actions under subsection (b)(1)(C) in which
the covered individual was the prevailing party or the
substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any
formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if
not, the reasons therefor.
(f) No Preemption.--Nothing in this section, section 112A,
or section 112B preempts or diminishes any other safeguards
against discrimination, demotion, discharge, suspension,
threats, harassment, reprimand, retaliation, or any other
manner of discrimination provided by Federal or State law.
(g) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this
section, section 112A, or section 112B shall be deemed to
diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any covered
individual under any Federal or State law or under any
collective bargaining agreement. The rights and remedies in
this section, section 112A and section 112B may not be waived
by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
(h) Definitions.--In this section, section 112A and section
112B, the following definitions apply:
(1) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual''
means an employee of--
(A) the Department;
(B) the Department of Transportation;
(C) a contractor or subcontractor; and
(D) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)) and who is a
provider of covered transportation.
(2) Lawful.--The term ``lawful'' means not specifically
prohibited by law, except that, in the case of any
information the disclosure of which is specifically
prohibited by law or specifically required by Executive order
to be kept classified in the interest of national defense or
the conduct of foreign affairs, any disclosure of such
information to any Member of Congress, committee of Congress,
or other recipient authorized to receive such information,
shall be deemed lawful.
(3) Contractor.--The term ``contractor'' means a person who
has entered into a contract with the Department, the
Department of Transportation, or a provider of covered
transportation.
(4) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
(A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(A) or (1)(B), an employee as defined by section 2105 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(B) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(C) or (1)(D), any officer, partner, employee, or agent.
(5) Subcontractor.--The term ``subcontractor''--
(A) means any person, other than the contractor, who offers
to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials, equipment,
or services of any kind under a contract with the Department,
the Department of Transportation, or a provider of covered
transportation; and
(B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes
general supplies to the contractor or a higher tier
subcontractor.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' means a corporation,
partnership, State entity, business association of any kind,
trust, joint-stock company, or individual.
Section 113(c), strike ``the Secretary of Transportation
and''.
Section 116(b), strike ``designate the Center'' and insert
``select an institution of higher education to operate the
National Transportation Security Center of Excellence''.
Section 116(c)--
(1) redesignate paragraphs (1) through (3) as paragraphs
(2) through (4), respectively; and
(2) insert after the subsection heading the following:
(1) Consortium.--The institution of higher education
selected under subsection (b) shall execute agreements with
other institutions of higher education to develop a
consortium to assist in accomplishing the goals of the
Center.
Section 116(c)(3), as redesignated, insert ``or'' before
``Tribal''.
Section 116, strike ``Consortium'' each place it appears
and insert ``consortium''.
Section 118, after ``risk'' strike all that follows through
``security''.
Section 120(d)(1), strike ``any rule'' and all that follows
through ``an employer'' and insert the following: ``if an
employer performs background checks to satisfy any rule,
regulation, directive, or other guidance issued by the
Secretary regarding background checks of covered individuals,
the employer shall be prohibited''.
Section 123(a), strike ``the Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives'' and
insert ``the appropriate congressional committees''.
Section 124, strike ``railcar'' and insert ``railroad car''
each place it appears.
Section 124(b)(1), strike subparagraph (B) and insert the
following:
(B) More than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of a division 1.1,
1.2, or 1.3 explosive, as defined in section 173.50 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, in a motor vehicle, rail
car, or freight container.
Section 124(b)(3)(A), strike ``railyards'' and insert
``railroad yards''.
Section 124(f), insert ``railroad'' before ``carrier''.
Section 125(d)--
(1) redesignate paragraph (16) as paragraph (17);
(2) in paragraph (15), strike ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(3) after paragraph (15), insert the following:
(16) nonprofit employee labor organizations; and
Section 124(f), insert ``railroad'' before ``carrier''.
Section 125 at the end, insert the following:
(f) Savings Provision.--An action of the Secretary or the
Secretary of Transportation under this Act is not an
exercise, under section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)), of statutory
authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations
affecting occupational safety or health.
Section 126(a)(1), ``The Secretary shall'' and insert ``The
Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation shall
jointly''.
Section 126(a)(2), strike ``the Secretary shall'' and
insert ``the Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation
shall jointly''.
Section 126(a)(3), insert ``and the Secretary of
Transportation'' after ``Secretary''.
Section 126(b)(3), insert ``and the Secretary of
Transportation'' after ``Secretary''.
Section 128, strike ``shall'' and insert ``should''.
Section 128, insert ``(a) Preference.--'' before ``In''.
Section 128 at the end, insert the following:
(b) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall
affect grant recipient requirements pursuant to section
5323(j) of title 49, United States Code, section 24305(f) of
title 49, United States Code, and the Buy American Act (41
U.S.C. 10).
Section 130(a), strike ``undeclared passengers or
contraband, including''.
Section 130 at the end, insert the following:
(c) Use of Transportation Data.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary shall make use of data collected
and maintained by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 131, strike the text and insert the following: ``In
carrying out section 119, the Secretary shall require each
provider of covered transportation, including contractors and
subcontractors, assigned to a high-risk tier under section
102 to submit the names of their employees to the Secretary
to conduct checks of their employees against available
terrorist watchlists and immigration status databases.''.
At the end of title I, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 132. REVIEW OF GRANT-MAKING EFFICIENCY.
(a) Annual Study.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an annual study for each of the first 3
years after the enactment of this title regarding the
administration and use of the grants awarded under sections
105, 106, and 107 of this title, including--
(1) the efficiency of the division of the grant-making
process, including whether the
[[Page H3126]]
Department of Transportation's role in distributing,
auditing, and monitoring the grant funds produces efficiency
compared to the consolidation of these responsibilities in
the Department of Homeland Security;
(2) whether the roles of the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation in the
administration of the grants permit the grants to be awarded
and used in a timely and efficient manner and according to
their intended purposes;
(3) the use of grant funds, including whether grant funds
are used for authorized purposes.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit an annual report to the appropriate
congressional committees on the results of the study for each
of the first 3 years after enactment of this title, including
any recommendations for improving the administration and use
of the grant funds awarded under sections 105, 106, and 107.
SEC. 133. ROLES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
The Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal
official responsible for transportation security. The roles
and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of Transportation in carrying out sections
101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 123, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, and 201 of this Act are
the roles and responsibilities of such Departments pursuant
to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law
107-71); the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (Public Law 108-458); the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan required by Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 7; Executive Order 13416: Strengthening Surface
Transportation Security, dated December 5, 2006; the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and the
Department of Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities,
dated September 28, 2004; the Annex to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department and the Department of
Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities concerning
Railroad Security, dated September 28, 2006; the Annex to the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and the
Department of Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities
concerning Public Transportation Security, dated September 8,
2005; and any subsequent agreements between the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.
Section 201(a), strike ``ensure that canine detection teams
are deployed'' and insert ``encourage the deployment of
canine detection teams''.
Section 201(b), strike ``to increase'' and insert ``to
encourage an increase in''.
Strike ``rail carrier'' and insert ``railroad carrier''
each place it appears in the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed will each control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the text I have
placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the provisions of the offering that
have been made by the gentleman. I was wondering if I could inquire as
to the content of his modification.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Actually, Mr. Chairman, it was a
drafting error on the whistleblower proceedings. And if you would look
at it, it clearly was Legislative Counsel's error, and we are really
just trying to correct the language.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for further inquiry?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in fact the way
that the amendment is now drawn, the original Thompson amendment
offered as amendment No. 1 was in fact flawed and that this would
correct that flaw; and the intent that is in the Thompson amendment
that would be of a negative impact would be removed by the correction
that you are now offering.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I understand that Mr.
Davis, as well as Mr. Waxman, are in agreement with the correction,
because it is really the language from their whistleblower bill that we
are trying to make sure that is consistent with what we have.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida withdraw his
reservation?
Mr. MICA. I do have a reservation. I will have to object.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
{time} 1600
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier, H.R. 1401 is an important milestone
in protecting our Nation's rail and public transportation systems.
Since its introduction, however, Chairman Oberstar and Chairman
Waxman have worked with me to improve the bill and satisfy a number of
concerns they had. I am proud that my colleagues and I were able to put
aside jurisdictional squabbles that plagued our committees in the past
two Congresses. By working together, we came up with compromise
language that is good for the Nation and good for Congress.
I want to thank Chairman Waxman for the assistance he and his staff
gave me on improving whistleblower protections for transportation
workers. The manager's amendment strengthens the protections for
Federal employees and contractors.
As revised, the protections more closely resemble those found in H.R.
985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Members may recall
that H.R. 985 overwhelmingly passed the House 2 weeks ago.
I also have worked closely with Chairman Oberstar to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of the Departments of Homeland Security and
Transportation under this bill. The two agencies will have the same
responsibilities established in the various laws, executive orders, and
MOUs already governing their relationship.
Additionally, in order to improve efficiency, we will create a new
relationship between the Departments to manage the rail, public
transportation, and bus security grants created by this bill. For all
three grants, the Homeland Security Department will be responsible for
determining the requirements for recipients of grants, including
application requirements; determining who receives the grants;
determining the uses for the grant funds; and establishing priorities
for uses of funds.
Transportation will be responsible for distributing grant funds to
those recipients as directed by Homeland Security. Both agencies will
jointly monitor and audit the use of grant funds.
I believe that this cooperative relationship will create
efficiencies. Allowing Transportation to be the ``Western Union'' for
grants is consistent with the recommendation of the American Public
Transportation Association.
I am proud to have worked side by side with Chairman Oberstar to
ensure that our Nation's security needs are met in an efficient and
effective manner.
Since its creation in the 108th Congress, the Committee on Homeland
Security has had to compete with other committees just to get things
done. Good bills were stalled or held up too long because of
jurisdictional squabbles. Not this Congress. I thank Chairman Oberstar
for his help. By working together, I think we can demonstrate that the
110th Congress is a do-something Congress, not a Congress of competing
jurisdictions.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a
Congress that acts to better protect our rail and public transportation
system.
Mr. Chairman, I enter the following for purposes of explaining my
request for unanimous consent to correct a technical drafting error
that resulted in the omission from the Manager's Amendment of two
sections clearly referenced throughout the Manager's Amendment,
specifically referred to below as sections 112A and 112B.
The two sections listed below are not essential to making this
section of the underlying bill operative, but, while the bill and
section are still operational, the bill would be further clarified if
the following sections were included. I am disappointed that my
unanimous consent request was objected to, apparently for mere partisan
advantage. As such, at conference, I plan to work with Chairman Waxman
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to offer this language
as it represents a compromise between myself and Chairman Waxman. I
worked with Chairman Waxman to make the provisions of H.R. 1401 similar
to those in H.R. 985, which is the bipartisan whistleblower protection
bill that overwhelmingly passed the House on March 14. Below is the
technical amendment that should have been made today:
[[Page H3127]]
SEC. 112A. WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 1221 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k)(1) If, in the case of a covered individual described
in the provisions of section 112(b)(1)(A) of the Rail and
Transportation Security Act of 2007 seeking relief (in
accordance with such provisions) from any discrimination
described in section 112(a) of such Act, no final order or
decision is issued by the Board within 180 days after the
date on which a request for such relief has been duly
submitted (or, in the event that a final order or decision is
issued by the Board, whether within that 180-day period or
thereafter, then, within 90 days after such final order or
decision is issued, and so long as such covered individual
has not filed a petition for judicial review of such order or
decision under subsection (h))--
``(A) such covered individual may, after providing written
notice to the Board, bring an action at law or equity for de
novo review in the appropriate United States district court,
which shall have jurisdiction over such action without regard
to the amount in controversy, and which action shall, at the
request of either party to such action, be tried by the court
with a jury; and
``(B) in any such action, the court--
``(i) shall apply the standards set forth in subsection
(e); and
``(ii) may award any relief which the court considers
appropriate, including any relief described in subsection
(g).
An appeal from a final decision of a district court in an
action under this paragraph may, at the election of the
covered individual, be taken to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (which shall have jurisdiction of such
appeal), in lieu of the United States court of appeals for
the circuit embracing the district in which the action was
brought.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term
`appropriate United States district court', as used with
respect to any alleged discrimination, means the United
States district court for the district in which the such
discrimination is alleged to have occurred, the judicial
district in which the employment records relevant to such
discrimination are maintained and administered, or the
judicial district in which resides the covered individual
allegedly affected by such discrimination.
``(3) This subsection applies with respect to any appeal,
petition, or other request for relief duly submitted to the
Board, whether pursuant to section 1214(b)(2), the preceding
provisions of this section, section 7513(d), or any otherwise
applicable provisions of law, rule, or regulation.''.
(b) Review of MSPB Decisions.--Section 7703(b) of such
title 5 is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit'' and inserting ``the appropriate United States court
of appeals''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) For purposes of the first sentence of paragraph (1),
the term ` appropriate United States court of appeals' means
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
except that in the case of any discrimination to which
section 1221(k) applies, such term means the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and any United
States court of appeals having jurisdiction over appeals from
any United States district court which, under section
1221(k)(2), would be an appropriate United States district
court for purposes of such discrimination.''.
(c) Compensatory Damages.--Section 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii) of
such title 5 is amended by striking ``changes.'' and
inserting ``changes (as well as, in any case of
discrimination covered by section 112 of the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007, compensatory damages,
including attorney's fees, interest, reasonable expert
witness fees, and costs).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1221(h) of such title 5 is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Judicial review under this subsection shall not be
available with respect to any decision or order as to which a
covered individual has filed a petition for judicial review
under subsection (k).''.
(2) Section 7703(c) of such title 5 is amended by striking
``court.'' and inserting ``court, and in the case of
discrimination described in section 112 of the Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 brought under any
provision of law, rule, or regulation described in section
1221(k)(3), the covered individual involved shall have the
right to de novo review in accordance with section
1221(k).''.
SEC. 112B. WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS.
(a) Investigation of Complaints.--A covered individual
described in subsection (b)(1)(B) of section 112 who believes
that such individual has been subjected to discrimination
prohibited by such section may submit a complaint to the
Inspector General and the head of the contracting agency. The
Inspector General shall investigate the complaint and, unless
the Inspector General determines that the complaint is
frivolous, submit a report of the findings of the
investigation within 120 days to the covered individual and
to the head of the contracting agency.
(b) Remedy.--
(1) Within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the
head of the contracting agency shall, taking into
consideration the report of the Inspector General under
subsection (a) (if any), determine whether the covered
individual has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by
section 112, and shall either issue an order denying relief
or shall take one or more of the actions described in
subparagraphs (A) through (C) of section 315(c)(1) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 265(c)(1)).
(2) If the head of the contracting agency has not made a
determination under paragraph (1) within 180 days of the
filing of the complaint (or has issued an order denying
relief, in whole or in part, whether within that 180-day
period or thereafter, then, within 90 days after such order
is issued), the covered individual may bring an action at law
or equity for de novo review to seek any relief described in
paragraph (1) in the appropriate United States district court
(as defined by section 1221(k)(2) of title 5, United States
Code), which shall have jurisdiction over such action without
regard to the amount in controversy, and which action shall,
at the request of either party to such action, be tried by
the court with a jury.
(3) A covered individual adversely affected or aggrieved by
an order issued under paragraph (1), or who seeks review of
any relief determined under paragraph (1), may obtain
judicial review of such order in the United States court of
appeals for the circuit in which the discrimination is
alleged to have occurred. No petition seeking such review may
be filed more than 60 days after issuance of the order or the
determination to implement any relief by the head of the
agency. Review shall conform to chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute; and I
reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment.
The first basic reason is, when the original legislation was passed
out of our committee, we would have had funding going directly to
police agencies, the police departments who actually do security work.
Now the money will have to go through the carriers, and the police will
have to seek reimbursement from them. This is an added level of
bureaucracy we don't need. It will impede a well-coordinated and
structured security response. For that reason alone, I have to oppose
it.
Also, by having a bifurcated rent distribution system between DOT and
DHS, to me this goes against the letter and the spirit of the 9/11
Commission. For those basic reasons, I reluctantly oppose the manager's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking
member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, again, I wish that
this bill could truly have been crafted in a bipartisan manner.
I have to speak against the manager's amendment because the sponsor
of the manager's amendment just stood and admitted to a flaw that is in
the bill. Again, this is a lesson to all of us that if we craft these
pieces of important legislation, we put partisan politics aside. This
isn't the place for partisan politics. This is a national security
issue critical to the survival of our people. If we put those aside and
we work together on this, we wouldn't find ourselves tied in this
little legislative knot that they are trying to figure out: Should we
pass this flawed manager's amendment?
The bad news is that the flawed provision in section 3 of the
manager's amendment allows every State to effectively override safety
rules. That is the great part of this system, that the minority and the
majority work together and craft legislation and we find some flaws and
make some improvements, and we were denied that. The T&I side was
denied even one amendment.
That is why I opposed the rule, and that is why I am going to oppose
the manager's amendment, and that is why I am going to oppose this
bill.
I will go back and tell folks in my district, I did not vote for
this, and it was $7 billion, not because I didn't want to provide
security, but I wanted to make sure that their hard-earned
[[Page H3128]]
money was well spent and we didn't pass in an arbitrary fashion, ignore
the rights of the majority and the minority, legislation that would
benefit this country, especially in the situation we find ourselves
with the terrorist threats we have seen.
We don't want a Madrid or a London, but I don't want politics to
override what should be good legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Two minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I want to thank Mr. King for yielding.
I listened very carefully to the colloquy between someone I have the
greatest respect for in the entire Congress, Chairman Oberstar, and the
gentleman from North Dakota. We had the gentleman from North Dakota and
some of his constituents and people from the American Association for
Justice before the committee.
I happen to believe that anybody who is injured as a result of fault
by another person should have his or her day in court and should be
compensated when that is required. But the problem we have with section
3, section 3 undoes decades of Federal preemption when safety matters
are concerned on the Nation's railroads, and the situation that we are
going to find ourselves in is the one that Mr. Shuster described:
States will be free to pass 50 different sets of safety regulations,
and trains are going to have to stop at the border and comply with
this, that or the other thing.
If section 3 simply said what happened in Minot, North Dakota, is
horrible and those people should have their day in court to have the
ability to seek compensation, I would be the first one to support it.
I am afraid, however, and with as much respect as I have for the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, when the title of the
document, section 3, is ``No Preemption of State Law'' it is going to
have an unintended consequence. It is going to undo the fabric of our
Nation's rail system. I think for that reason alone, notwithstanding
whatever Mr. Mica had to say, for that reason alone, we should have
come together in a bipartisan way, recognizing the strengthens of both
the Homeland Security and the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and gotten this right.
This, in my opinion, is a ham-handed approach that should be
defeated.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close at
this time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for
90 seconds.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, I want to express my great appreciation to the
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee with whom I have worked
very diligently and cooperatively. He is a man of great personal
integrity and legislative honor and has worked vigorously to produce a
splendid rail and public transportation security bill.
There has been some discussion about how the grants will be
administered. We had testimony before our committee from the Nation's
transit agencies and through their national organization. The American
Public Transit Association told our committee they prefer to work with
the DOT and Federal Transit Administration and grant administration.
They have had experience with them. FTA knows the operational aspect of
transit. They know the security side of transit. They can combine the
two with less complexity and more efficiency than the Department of
Homeland Security, which is just getting started, with a huge new
bureaucracy, as we have learned, with over 206,000 people. So that part
is working well and will work well in the language that we have agreed
upon.
Again, let me just come back to the preemption issue. Read the words,
believe the words, ``no preemption of State law.'' That's what it says.
That's what it means. I strongly support the manager's amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to call to your
attention a problem which has been slowly developing based on recent
court cases, and why it is necessary for Congress to rectify the
situation. Courts are ignoring congressional intent and leaving
Americans injured by the negligence of the railroads without any
remedies.
The Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) was enacted in 1970 to create a
system of minimum safety standards to improve railroad safety and
reduce accidents. Congress intended for these federal standards to be a
floor, and expressly granted states the authority to pass stronger
safety laws.
Now some courts are ignoring congressional intent and denying
Americans grievously injured in railroad accidents their rights under
state law, even when it is undisputed that the cause of the accident
was the railroad's wrongdoing. By preempting state law, these courts
are leaving injured Americans with no remedy at all--since FRSA itself
does not provide a remedy or cause of action for victims.
The residents of Minot, North Dakota and others similarly injured
should have their day in court. One only needs to look at the tragedy
in Minot, North Dakota to see the impact of these court decisions on
real people. On January 31, 2002, 31 railroad cars derailed near the
city of Minot, North Dakota, releasing over 200,000 gallons of the
deadly gas, anhydrous ammonia. The dense cloud of toxic fumes engulfed
the town of Minot causing one death and injuring hundreds of people. If
this tragedy had happened in a big city or even in the middle of the
day (instead of 2:00 a.m.) countless more people would be killed or
injured.
Among the various causes of the derailment was the failure of a so-
called temporary joint bar that had been left in this substandard track
for over 20 months. In addition, the track itself was old, worn out and
poorly maintained--not even meeting the minimum standards under FRSA.
The Canadian Pacific Railroad admitted that it was responsible for the
derailment, but argued that it could not be held accountable because
FRSA preempted state law claims.
The federal court dismissed the claims brought under state law on the
basis of federal preemption, admitting that ``such a result is unduly
harsh and leaves the Plaintiffs no remedy for this tragic accident.''
Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1120 (D.N.D.
2006).
Unfortunately, this isn't a problem limited to one court. Court
decisions in Minnesota and Massachusetts have left victims of
negligence with no recourse for their injuries. See, e.g., Kalan
Enterprises, LLC v BNSF Railway Co., 415 F. Supp. 2d 977 (D. Minn.
2006); Ouellette v. Union Tank Car Co., 902 F. Supp. 5 (D. Mass 1995).
Congress mut act now before more Americans lose their right to a
remedy, and that is why we have chosen to add technical language to the
Rail Security bill to alleviate this problem on a timely basis. Over
200 claims pending in Minnesota state court have been removed to
federal court by Canadian Pacific. The railroad is arguing that all
claims against it should be dismissed based on preemption under the
FRSA. Oral argument on the railroad's motion to dismiss has been
scheduled for May 15th so it's imperative to clarify that the FRSA does
not preempt state remedies in order to prevent an additional travesty
of justice.
The language would clarify that the purpose of the FRSA was and is to
set uniform minimum safety standards, and that an expansive application
of preemption to deprive accident victims' access to state remedies is
a misapplication of the law.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Arcuri
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Arcuri:
At the end of title I, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
[[Page H3129]]
SEC. __. ASSESSMENT AND REPORT.
(a) Study.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall assess the safety and
security vulnerabilities of placing high voltage direct
current electric transmission lines along active railroad
rights-of-way. In conducting the assessment, the Secretary
shall, at a minimum, evaluate the risks to local inhabitants
and to consumers of electric power transmitted by those
lines, associated with a train collision or derailment that
damages such electric transmission lines.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit the
results of the assessment in subsection (a) to the
appropriate congressional committees as defined in this Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Arcuri) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and
Public Transportation Security Act, would address an important issue
surrounding our Nation's efforts to expand electric power to major
urban areas, and that is, of course, the safety issue.
On the morning of March 12, 2007, a CSX freight train derailed
approximately 34 cars near Oneida, New York. Reports indicate there was
an evacuation covering a 1-mile radius. Luckily, there were no reported
deaths or injuries. However, a large fire occurred at the scene, and
residents and emergency responders reported hearing secondary
explosions. CSX provided information that there were 40 tank cars
carrying liquid petroleum gas in the train. What's more, the derailment
closed the New York State Thruway for several hours, requiring traffic
to be detoured miles out of the way.
Prior to this incident, there were 18 train derailments in western
New York between January, 2005, and September, 2006, which further
suggests the condition of New York State's freight railways are in need
of serious attention and repair.
While this concern continues to trouble the people of New York, a
private company is seeking to build a 190-mile high-voltage direct
current transmission line from the town of Marcy in Oneida County,
located in my district, to the town of New Windsor in Orange County in
Mr. John Hall's district.
The company estimates that more than 90 percent of the proposed
primary and alternative routes will follow existing rights-of-way, both
along railroad tracks and natural gas lines. The transmission line
would consist of 135-foot-tall towers and be operated with a rated
power flow of 1,200 megawatts. A portion of the proposed route follows
the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway right-of-way, which would
run through some of the more heavily populated cities and towns in
upstate New York. This is a situation where the consequences and risk
are not only unknown but wholly unnecessary.
{time} 1615
For these reasons, my amendment to H.R. 1401 would require the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of
Transportation, to conduct an assessment of the safety and security
vulnerabilities of placing high voltage direct current electric
transmission lines along active railroad rights-of-way.
The assessment shall, at a minimum, evaluate the risks to local
inhabitants and consumers of electric power transmitted by those lines,
associated with a train collision or derailment that damages such
electric transmission lines.
It is no secret that as our cities continue to grow they will need
more energy, and I fully support addressing that need; but meeting that
need must be done in a safe and a responsible way.
To this end, my amendment simply requires the Departments of Homeland
Security and Transportation to take a hard look at our existing rail
infrastructure and assess the security vulnerabilities so that we can
avoid further electric power interruptions and preserve the safety of
our constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in
opposition, even though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman
from New York, I commend him for his amendment and I appreciate his
concerns. My only thought is that these seem to be primarily safety
concerns, as opposed to security, and there are already so many
reporting requirements on the Department of Homeland Security that I am
reluctant to request another report from the Department of Homeland
Security.
Having said that, as this legislation goes forward, I would just ask
the gentleman to work with us as it goes to conference in the event
that after speaking with the Secretary and the Department that they do
consider this a burden and perhaps refine it.
With that, I have no objection to it. I just would ask the gentleman
if he would work with us as the process goes forward.
Mr. ARCURI. If the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman, yes.
Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New
York for offering this important amendment. I am honored to speak in
support of it.
America's railways and power lines are key critical infrastructure.
So when proposals would locate them together, it only makes sense for
DHS and DOT to give them serious scrutiny.
In the State of New York, the homeland security stakes are
particularly high. Yet a private company continues to pursue eminent
domain authority to install the massive New York Regional Interconnect
along rail routes, through environmentally sensitive areas, and over
the objections of local residents.
In their hurry to get NYRI up and running, the company has pushed
forward a plan that would put a 1,200 megawatt line on 135-foot towers
near numerous rail lines. In western New York, there have been 19
derailments since 2005. The potential recipe for disaster is clear
here.
There is also a matter of precedent that this amendment would help to
clarify. By passing this amendment, this body can say that in projects
in New York and around the country that we will not endorse putting
special for-profit eminent domain provisions above the security of our
citizens, the sanctity of our environment or the rights of our
landowners.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that the
committee majority supports Mr. Arcuri's very thoughtful method to
protect those individuals along those very difficult byways dealing
with these particular power lines.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, as I said, my amendment simply requires the
Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to take a hard look
at our existing rail infrastructure and assess the security
vulnerabilities so that we can avoid further electric power
interruptions, while at the same time ensuring the health and safety of
our citizens residing near high voltage power lines.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 110-74.
[[Page H3130]]
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Cohen:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. _____. ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL SOURCES.
The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall establish a program to coordinate with State
and local governments to minimize the need for transportation
of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as necessary to
make this presentation.
I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act. My amendment would call for the Department
of Transportation to coordinate with related agencies as well as State
and local governments to seek efforts that will minimize the transport
of toxic inhalation hazardous materials.
Never has the danger of transporting hazardous materials been more
clear than in this post-9/11 age. While rail is clearly the safest
means of transport for such materials, we must work to ensure this
transit is as secure, efficient and is as considerate towards the
safety of our communities as possible. The U.S. Naval Research Lab has
said an attack on such a rail car could kill 100,000 people.
Additionally, in 2005 testimony before the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the administration's deputy
homeland security adviser at the time, Richard A. Falkenrath, told
Congress in 2005 that ``toxic-by-inhalation industrial chemicals
present a mass-casualty terrorist potential rivaled only by improvised
nuclear devices, certain acts of bioterrorism, and the collapse of
large, occupied buildings.'' Railroads carry 105,000 carloads of toxic
chemicals a year and 1.6 million carloads of other hazardous materials
such as explosives and radioactive items.
In mid-January of this year, several train cars carrying flammable
liquid derailed and exploded south of Louisville, Kentucky, shutting
down a nearby highway and forcing evacuations of nearby homes,
businesses and a school, according to local authorities. Two years
earlier, a train crash in South Carolina caused a release of chlorine
gas resulting in deaths, injuries, and forcing the evacuation of people
from the surrounding areas. Most recently, there was a Union Pacific
derailment of 28 cars in Henderson County, Texas.
In the wake of these recent derailments, State and local officials
nationwide have begun examining their regulatory authority over the
transportation of hazardous materials by rail. Several localities
nationwide have either introduced or enacted absolute bans on the
transportation of certain toxic substances from trains that travel
through their areas.
This action has prompted litigation from the rail industry due to
alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause and
Federal statutes concerning the transportation of hazardous materials.
Rail companies fear such laws would force them to extend the travel of
hazardous cargo by hundreds of miles around cities with the unintended
effect of transferring the risk to other localities. This consensus
amendment addresses the concerns of both rail companies and community
advocates by seeking to cut the transport of these hazardous materials
all together.
In a June 2006 statement before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, the president and CEO of the Association of
American Railroads made several recommendations intended to reduce the
risks associated with the manufacture and transport of highly hazardous
materials. Among these recommendations was ``examining whether and how
railroads can utilize coordinated routing arrangements to safely reduce
hazmat transportation'' as well as ``examining whether hazmat consumers
can source hazmat from closer suppliers.''
My amendment would simply call upon the Department of Transportation
to follow this recommendation by coordinating with localities to allow
consumers to obtain TIH materials with the intended consequence of
minimizing the time and frequency such materials are routed through our
communities.
Last July, the Memphis Commercial Appeal identified train cars
carrying chlorine, 2-Dimethylaminoethyl acrylate, acetone cyanohydrin,
nickel carbonyl, and several other toxic inhalation hazard cargoes over
a 2-day period in or near residential areas of Memphis. Not only hard
to pronounce but very difficult to inhale I am sure of the things we
would rather not inhale or pronounce. All of these chemicals are listed
as potentially lethal if inhaled.
City council members and other community leaders in Memphis are
calling on the Federal Government for assistance in deterring the
transport of these materials through their residential areas.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment and support this
legislation and current efforts under way to improve the safety of our
rail system. To further ensure the safety of our railways, as well as
the local communities they serve, I call upon my colleagues to pass
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand the
intent of the gentleman offering the amendment; but, unfortunately,
upon reading it, it is obvious that this is a do-good amendment that
either does nothing or does harm.
The reason I say that is that the subject the gentleman wishes to
cover in this amendment is covered by the base bill already which will
be retained if, in fact, we pass the manager's amendment.
Section 124 of the bill, pages 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90, take
into effect what the gentleman is talking about. This is the Markey
amendment which was worked out in committee on a bipartisan basis in
some detail to work with the problem that you have, the security-
sensitive materials, that encompasses security-sensitive materials,
which includes within its universe toxic inhalation hazardous
materials.
The issue is, what do we do with the fact that we need some of these
products as far as our society goes now but that they would also
provide an opportunity for terrorists to utilize them for damage to a
particular community? So we crafted a very careful amendment that
allows for consideration of the needs here on the economic side and the
harm done.
The way the gentleman has written his amendment, it requires the
Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to minimize the need
for transportation of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail
only, by rail only. We looked at that requirement to have the Secretary
come up with rules and regulations that were to take into consideration
the total threat, the total need here. So by the gentleman's own
amendment, we may be required to minimize the travel on rail, which
will maximize the travel on our highways. Now, I do not think the
gentleman believes that necessarily makes it safer, or on our barges.
This amendment, as drafted so narrowly, would require us to undercut
much of what we have done in the base bill as a result of working on a
bipartisan basis with Mr. Markey in an area of concern that he has
expressed often on the floor and in committee hearing after committee
hearing.
That is why I say either it does nothing and, therefore, is harmless
or if, in fact, it does something, and there is mandatory language in
here requiring the Secretary of Transportation, he shall establish such
a program, requires him to move in only one direction which may, in
fact, make it more dangerous overall.
One of the things we learned in our hearings was that you have to
consider the entirety of the threat out there, the entirety of the
universe of possible options. The gentleman denies the Secretary to do
that by requiring that it minimize the transit of toxic inhalation
hazardous materials by rail only,
[[Page H3131]]
and it undercuts what we have done in a very, very I think informed
way, detailed way, talking about storage patterns, talking about rail
transportation routes, talking about the analysis of these storage
patterns and then requires a compilation of that information and
analysis of that information and consideration of that information and
then informed judgment, not something like this which says, you know,
you have to do it only one way.
So, as I say, I understand what the gentleman has said. It sounds
good when you first look at it; but if you really look at what it
means, it is going to tie the Secretary's hands to move in a particular
direction that may or may not allow us to be safer than we are today;
and for that reason, I would hope that we would vote this down.
If the gentleman would like to work with us on a bipartisan basis, as
I did with Mr. Markey before, that would be superior to this. This
unfortunately, as I say, is a do-good amendment which either does
nothing or does harm to the interests of this bill as presented by our
committee on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you. It is my understanding that the Markey
amendment dealt with a study. This does not deal with a study.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, no. I take my time back. The
Markey amendment does not just deal with a study. Read the Markey
amendment. It starts with a study. Then it requires the Secretary to
come forward with regulations. Then it requires certain action on the
part of all the parties involved. It is not just a mere study. Working
that hard on it, I frankly do not appreciate you trying to say that it
is just a study. That is not true whatsoever.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. First of all, the gentleman knows that we
look forward in our committee to work on this issue dealing with
trucks. I would say that the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee's
amendment does not push it off to trucks. It only wants to reduce
chemicals.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
{time} 1630
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Castle
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Castle:
At the end of title I, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. ___. STUDY OF FOREIGN RAIL SECURITY PRACTICES.
The Secretary shall--
(1) study select foreign rail security practices, and the
cost and feasibility of implementing selected best practices
that are not currently used in the United States, including--
(A) implementing covert testing processes to evaluate the
effectiveness of rail system security personnel;
(B) implementing practices used by foreign rail operators
that integrate security into infrastructure design;
(C) implementing random searches or screening of passengers
and their baggage; and
(D) establishing and maintaining an information
clearinghouse on existing and emergency security technologies
and security best practices used in the passenger rail
industry both in the United States and abroad; and
(2) report the results of the study, together with any
recommendations that the Secretary may have for implementing
covert testing, practices for integrating security in
infrastructure design, random searches or screenings, and an
information clearinghouse to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer an important amendment to the legislation before us
today.
As many of my colleagues have noted, terrorists are increasingly
targeting rail and transit systems throughout the world. The recent
bombings in India, London and Madrid are clear evidence of this
dangerous trend.
While the concept of rail security is relatively new here at home,
security officials in Europe and Asia have decades of experience with
terrorist attacks, and I have long believed in the importance of
leveraging this experience to improve our own system.
In 2003, I asked the Government Accountability Office to undertake an
in-depth study of foreign rail security practices. Over the course of
several months, a GAO team visited 13 different foreign rail systems,
and a subsequent report identified many innovative measures to secure
rail systems, many of which are currently being used in the U.S.
Most significantly, however, the GAO report identified four important
foreign rail security practices that are not currently being used to
any great extent in the United States.
First, the report found that other nations have improved the
vigilance of their security staff by performing daily unannounced
events, known as covert testing, to gauge responsiveness to incidents
such as suspicious packages or open emergency doors.
Similarly, two of the thirteen foreign operators interviewed by GAO
also reported success using some form of random screening to search
passengers and baggage for bombs and other suspicious materials. This
practice has been used sporadically in the U.S., including in New York
City following in the 2005 London bombings, but has never been
implemented for any continuous period of time.
The GAO also noted that many foreign governments maintain a national
clearinghouse on security technologies and best practices. Such a
government-sponsored database would allow rail operators to have one
central source of information on the merits of rail security
technology, like chemical sensors and surveillance equipment.
Finally, while GAO noted that the Department of Transportation has
taken steps to encourage rail operators to consider security when
renovating or constructing facilities, many foreign operators are still
far more advanced when it comes to incorporating aspects of security
into infrastructure design.
For example, this photograph here to my left of the London
Underground demonstrates several security upgrades, such as vending
machines with sloped tops to reduce the likelihood of a bomb being
placed there, clear trash bins, and netting throughout the station to
prevent objects from being left in recessed areas. As you can see, the
London stations are also designed to provide security staff with clear
lines of sight to all areas of the station, including underneath
benches and ticket machines.
The British government has praised these measures for deterring
terrorist attacks. In one incident their security cameras recorded IRA
terrorists attempting to place an explosive device inside a station.
According to London officials, due to infrastructure design and
improvements, the terrorists were deterred when they could not find a
suitable location to hide the device inside the station.
While the GAO acknowledged that deploying these four practices in
this
[[Page H3132]]
country may be difficult, in fact, random screening may pose many
challenges, it is clear that these foreign security techniques deserve
greater consideration. Therefore, the amendment I am offering today
would take steps to improve rail and transit security by requiring the
Secretary of Homeland Security to study the cost and feasibility of
implementing these practices and submit a report making recommendations
to the Homeland Security Committee and Transportation Committee within
one year of enactment.
Mr. Chairman, recent attacks on rail and transit throughout the world
underscores the importance of acting now to upgrade security here at
home. My amendment will make certain that we are knowledgeable and
consider all available options when it comes to ensuring the safety and
security of our rail system.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition. I am not opposed, but I would claim the time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
I believe this is a thoughtful amendment. The committee believes this
adds to the legislation on the floor. We should look into security
practices used by other countries that have experience with attacks on
rail and mass transit systems.
This timeframe, the month of March, sadly commemorates the tragedy in
Madrid. Certainly we are well aware of the London train bombings. Their
insight, their recovery, their instructions would be very important.
This study should include an evaluation of practices such as covert
testing, security measures built into infrastructure and random
searches of passengers and baggage.
When GAO testified before our committee, we learned that, while we
share many rail security practices with other countries such as
customer awareness, canine teams, limited passenger and baggage
screening and technology upgrades, there were many practices that we
haven't fully vetted. It makes sense to learn what we can from our
neighbors who have already done a lot of work in this area.
I know that this is a tough challenge. This bill, I believe, answers
a lot of the concerns about the massiveness of rail travel and
passenger travel and all that goes into securing that particular
travel.
Looking at what our neighbors are doing and what other countries are
doing, Mr. Castle, I think it provides us an added road map for a
complicated process which really impacts certain areas of our country
more so than others. The Northeast corridor, of course, deserves our
fullest measure of support when it comes to passenger travel for the
numbers of systems that are here.
I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a moment.
First, let me first thank very much the distinguished Congresswoman
from Texas for her very kind words about the amendment. I am a strong
believer, as you have indicated as well, that when there are good ideas
out there that we should borrow these ideas. I believe this is
something we should do.
I don't mean to burden Homeland Security with studies, but to me this
is a relatively simple study matter and something which I think will
ultimately provide greater safety to people in this country.
Hopefully, all can support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply ask my colleagues to
support this amendment.
I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful contribution to this bill.
I support Mr. Castle's amendment.
We should look into security practices used by other countries that
have experience with terrorist attacks on rail and mass transits
systems.
This study should include an evaluation of practices such as covert
testing, security measures built into infrastructure, and random
searches of passengers and baggage.
When GAO testified before our committee, we learned that while we
share many rail security practices with other countries, such as
customer awareness, canine teams, limited passenger and baggage
screening, and technology upgrades, there were many practices that we
haven't fully vetted.
It makes sense to learn what we can from our neighbors who have
already done a lot of work in this area.
I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Sessions:
At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
SEC. 132. USE OF FUNDS BY AMTRAK.
None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act, except
pursuant to section 108, may be used by Amtrak for any of the
10 long-distance routes of Amtrak that have the highest cost
per seat/mile ratios according to the September 2006 Amtrak
monthly performance report, unless the Secretary has
transmitted to Congress a waiver of the requirement under
this section with respect to a route or portion of a route
that the Secretary considers to be critical to homeland
security.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward attempt
to prevent any further taxpayer money from being spent to place
additional unnecessary cost on Amtrak's 10 least profitable routes.
I would like to talk a little bit about what this amendment does not
do.
This amendment does not remove any currently appropriated funds.
This amendment does affect the 10 routes that are affected by the
amendment that currently cost the taxpayer $161 million per year and
will continue to cost the taxpayers $161 million if it is enacted.
This amendment does not affect the funds made available in section
108, which would be used to upgrade and improve the Northeast corridor
tunnels in New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
This amendment does not tie the hands of the administration, because
it provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with
the flexibility to waive this provision should that Secretary deem that
a security upgrade on one of these most unprofitable routes, or even a
partial part of it, would be deemed to be critical to Homeland
Security.
What this amendment does, and it does it very simply, is stop adding
unnecessary costs to the 10 worst routes that already cost Amtrak $161
million a year. The worst route in Amtrak's system, called the Sunset
Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles, had a net loss of
$20.4 million last year, or, on a cost basis to taxpayers, 25.5 cents
per seat for every mile of that journey.
The tenth worst route in Amtrak's system is the City of New Orleans,
which runs from Chicago to New Orleans, which had a net loss of $9
million last year, or a cost to taxpayers of 10.4 cents per seat for
every mile of that trip.
This amendment seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars from
being thrown after bad by limiting the costs on these already
unprofitable routes.
All in all, it says that if Amtrak wants to compete for the $4
billion worth of funds made available under this Act, they must ensure
that they are being used for routes that cost the taxpayer less than
10.4 cents per seat over every single mile, a hurdle that is hardly
unreasonable.
This amendment will provide fiscal discipline and accountability to a
system that has already received over $30
[[Page H3133]]
billion in taxpayer subsidies over its lifetime.
My amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens
Against Government Waste and Americans for Tax Reform, which are three
of the most prominent groups committed to monitoring the effective use
of taxpayer dollars.
On behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if there is anything
that's possible that they could want to support on behalf of taxpayers
that would be more. I encourage all of my colleagues to support my
amendment.
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,
Washington, DC, March 27, 2007.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Soon you will have the opportunity to
vote on an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007, that will be offered by
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). This amendment will prevent
Amtrak from using any of the appropriated funds in the bill,
except those noted in Section 108, from being used for any of
the top ten revenue losing long-distance routes that were
noted in Amtrak's September 2006 monthly performance report.
On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supporters
of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW),
I ask that you support this amendment.
Amtrak has failed to produce a profit since its inception
in 1971 and still has not met the Congressional deadline of
December 2, 2002 to achieve self-sufficiency. As a result, it
has become a black hole for taxpayer dollars. Fewer and fewer
people are using the rail service due to less costly and more
efficient alternatives, yet everyone pays for Amtrak through
their taxes. This amendment will ensure that tax dollars will
not be used to prop up non-profitable Amtrak routes and that
the money will be used in appropriate areas in order to
provide greater protection and safety for our nation's public
transportation. It does provide a waiver from this provision
if the Secretary of Homeland Security believes a route or a
portion of an Amtrak route is critical to homeland security.
All votes on H.R. 1401 will be among those considered in
CCAGW's 2007 Congressional Ratings.
Sincerely,
Thomas Schatz,
President.
____
Americans for Tax Reform,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.
Hon. Louise M. Slaughter,
Chairwoman, Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: On behalf of Americans for Tax
Reform (ATR), I urge you to make in order as part of the rule
the amendment offered by Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) to
H.R. 1401, the ``Rail and Public Transportation Security Act
of 2007.'' This amendment ensures the correct and effective
allocation of appropriations for homeland security in H.R.
1401.
H.R. 1401 was created to increase protection of America's
rail and public transportation. Congressman Sessions'
amendment helps close loopholes that could be exploited by
Amtrak to increase revenue on the least profitable of its
lines. Congressman Sessions makes clear that Amtrak may
petition for use of the funds on these rail lines if it is a
matter of homeland security.
Year after year taxpayers send Amtrak millions of dollars
in funding for projects and improvements that routinely fall
short of expectations. The funds in this bill have been
created to aid American transportation organizations in
making their services safer and more secure, not to help an
archaic railway.
Many amendments have been proposed to H.R. 1401 in an
effort to make the legislation stronger and more effective.
By allowing the Sessions amendment to be attached to H.R.
1401, you send a clear message that the funds included in
this bill are for making America safer, not for helping
Amtrak's bottom line.
Sincerely,
Grover Norquist,
President.
____
National Taxpayers Union,
Alexandria, VA, March 26, 2007.
National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert
NTU urges all Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment
offered by Rep. Pete Sessions to the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 1401) that would
prohibit funds in the bill from being used by Amtrak for any
of the 10 worst revenue-losing long-distance routes. Amtrak
has received more than $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies
during its lifetime, yet it continues to lose money due to
poor management practices and insulation from real-world
competitive business pressures. In fact, a 2005 Reason
Foundation commentary noted that one unprofitable
crosscountry route operated by Amtrak lost $466 per passenger
in 2004! Rep. Sessions' amendment would put an end to this
kind of fiscal foolishness by stopping Amtrak from throwing
good taxpayer money after bad.
Roll call votes on the Sessions Amendment will be included
in our annual Rating of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is a baffling, puzzling
amendment. I ask the question of my colleagues, what is one life worth?
What is one life worth that travels along the Nation's transit
corridors, the intense Northeast corridor that deals with Amtrak long
distance routes, 2 million people?
The Sessions amendment would prohibit any grant funds appropriated
pursuant to this Act to be used by Amtrak for making necessary safety
or security improvements along 10 Amtrak routes, with the exceptions of
some of those in some of the more intense areas of New York, Baltimore
and Union Station. Many of these routes provide central transportation
services to rural areas. Some of them enabled Amtrak to bring water and
food to the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and to
hurricane victims.
The question is, what is one life worth that is using this system?
What is our responsibility as Members of the United States Congress and
the Homeland Security Committee?
I believe this is both a bad amendment but a puzzling amendment, and
I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment so that we can truly
have a rail security bill that secures all of the transit system that
needs that coverage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, so that the gentlewoman from Texas is not
confused, I will repeat what we have said. The routes that we have
selected, the 10 most unprofitable routes, do not have enough people on
them to support this additional security and additional necessary
things that would come under the billions of dollars of this bill.
My amendment is straightforward. It allows the management of Amtrak
to be able to reallocate those resources where there are a lot of
people, namely, the east coast and the west coast, rather than
providing all these new security concerns all across the country that
has little to no passengers, that is unprofitable.
I am trying to allow Amtrak and the management, including the people
who live in the east coast and the west coast, to be able to get the
full measure of the security enhancements that would be necessary.
I am trying to allow the men and women, the management of Amtrak, to
be able to run their own business where the allocation of resources
should be made.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me just simply say to the gentleman, so
that I will clarify any suggestion of my confusion, we have 3.5 million
passengers who are riding Amtrak. One of the routes the gentleman wants
to eliminate is from Texas to California. I believe the gentleman is
from Texas. The idea is, Mr. Chairman, to make sure we have a system
that is integrated, safe; and there are security provisions to make the
network safe, the network that travels to the east coast, the network
that travels to California, the network that travels to the Northwest.
That is the idea of the rail bill, to ensure that we now have
coverage and the opportunity for security where we previously did not,
to avoid London and to avoid Madrid.
It is now my pleasure to be able to yield to the distinguished
chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for such time
as he might consume.
{time} 1645
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the Chair of the subcommittee for yielding.
And I respect very much the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). He
is a very devout fiscal conservative. But, unfortunately, this
language, as I read his amendment, would make very vulnerable those
persons who travel Amtrak routes that don't yield as much revenue to
Amtrak as those on
[[Page H3134]]
the east coast or the west coast. The Silver Service Palmetto carries
457,000 passengers. The Silver Meteor goes from New York, Philadelphia,
Wilmington, all the way to Ft. Lauderdale, 273,000 passengers. The
Capitol Limited, Chicago to Washington, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo,
nearly 200,000 passengers. The City of New Orleans, from Chicago to New
Orleans, 175,000 passengers a year. You are saying that they should be
vulnerable, but not others in more densely run lines. I think that is
inappropriate.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like to yield, but unfortunately I have
committed time to the gentlewoman from Florida, Chair of the Rail
Subcommittee to whom, the gentlewoman controls the time, if I may yield
further to her.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for his
eloquent statement.
Let me yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Rails on the Transportation Committee.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. This amendment jeopardizes the safety
and security of over 2 million Amtrak passengers and is a huge step
backwards in protecting the Nation's transportation infrastructure from
harm.
Amtrak was a first responder during Hurricane Katrina, delivering
food and supplies and helping to evacuate thousands of gulf region
residents when President Bush and his administration were nowhere to be
found. Now they are becoming a key part in each State's future
evacuation plan.
I was in New York City shortly after September 11 when the plane
leaving JFK airport crashed into the Bronx. Along with many of my other
colleagues in both the House and the Senate, I took Amtrak back to
Washington. I realized once again just how important Amtrak is to the
American people and how important it is for this Nation to have
alternate modes of transportation.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will close by simply saying
that we have asked the question and it has been answered: What is one
life worth?
Amtrak is part of a system. You break the security of one part of the
system, Mr. Chairman, you break the security of the entire system. This
amendment is important for breaking that. It is not important for
making this bill work.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the Sessions amendment so that the
network of Amtrak will have a secure and safe system for those that
travel on it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
Strike section 203.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike funding in the
bill for the TSA puppy breeding program, the increase that is slated to
take place in section 203 of the underlying bill.
The Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, has a puppy
program that puts government in the role of being the breeder of bomb-
sniffing dogs. This is clearly a role for the private sector.
There are literally hundreds, or thousands perhaps, private
contractors that perform this function. It seems laughable to me that
the Federal Government needs to be in the business of breeding dogs for
any purpose.
Some will defend the role of bomb-sniffing dogs. I don't question the
importance of the work that these animals do. It is important. It is
needed. It is certainly necessary.
What I am questioning is whether or not the Federal Government ought
to be in the business of breeding dogs. This is something that the
private sector does a lot more effectively.
I would ask any American who has been to the airport, any airport at
any time recently, if they believe that the TSA is so efficient in what
they do that they have somehow found new efficiencies in dog breeding
and that this is something that they ought to be spending their time
doing. I would venture to say, no, that they ought to spend their time
in doing the tasks that they have been given and not expanding their
reach further into this business.
How much this will cost the average American taxpayer is unclear. In
the bill it simply says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' I think that
we should, if there is a figure, it ought to be there rather than a
simple ``such sums as may be necessary.'' We have no idea how expensive
this program may become.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to
hearing the justification for this program.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again, let me simply say that
we are speaking about an existing program. We know that throughout our
security system the FBI, Customs and Border Protection, we use bomb-
sniffing dogs. And this is a program that already exists. It strikes
the increase in TSA's, Transportation Security Administration's,
already-existing program, domestic canine breeding program that is
called for in this bill.
Interestingly enough, this was added by Mr. Rogers, Mike Rogers of
our committee, of Alabama. This was added in the markup because he is
the ranking member on our Management and Personnel Subcommittee. He
understands the need for these canines. It was accepted in a spirit of
bipartisanship.
The TSA canine teams are a key part of the equation in keeping our
traveling public secure, and we all support expanding this program.
I ask one person in here, when they see dogs coming to be part of the
security team, how many people want to reject that canine team that is
very effective in determining whether something heinous and horrific is
going to act, even on this very campus in the United States Congress.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion on this. As I
said, nobody is questioning, certainly not me, the need to have bomb-
sniffing dogs. The FAA has had programs since 1972. Those programs have
continued.
But in 1999 the FAA, and as later taken up by the TSA, got into the
business of dog breeding. All this amendment says is, don't go any
further.
I have yet to hear a justification why the Federal Government needs
to be in the business of dog breeding.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. One of the main reasons is we don't have the
capacity domestically to breed these dogs. Of the dogs that we use in
TSA now, about 420, only about 15 percent, are bred in the domestic
program here. We have to go overseas to European sources for these dogs
because you can't just use any kind of dogs. They have to have
particular breeds that have skill sets and the ability to sniff a
variety of not only drugs but explosives, and we can't get them
domestically.
And I find it odd that I am on the other side of this issue because I
am the one that is usually criticized for
[[Page H3135]]
advocating more contracting out. But the fact is domestically we just
do not have the capacity to provide these dogs that we need in TSA or
in other areas, CBP, Secret Service or in DOD. DOD is obtaining the
majority of its dogs from European sources as well. I think that is
unacceptable as Americans.
Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I have here a list of many, many
companies that perform this function already that offer canine support
services in the private sector.
I still don't know why the Federal Government is in the business. I
haven't heard justification, and I don't think we can take it at face
value. I will bet if you go to the private contractors here they would
say there is enough. There are plenty of people in the private sector
that are doing this.
Why is the Federal Government competing with the private sector? Why
are we in the business?
I can guarantee you that TSA hasn't found efficiencies that people in
the private sector already know.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. The interesting thing about TSA, I have been
over to, the last couple of years, most of the breeding and training
programs for canines in this country. And the interesting thing about
TSA is they have the most stellar breeding program because they are
genetically breeding a dog that is particularly useful in
transportation settings at detecting explosives and being on its feet
for long periods of time.
The contractors you are talking about, you can buy dogs in this
country. Not the breeds that we need. That is the problem. If we could,
I would be on your side of this amendment. We can't. That is why
currently we are obtaining over 80 percent of our dogs from European
sources. And they are private sources, by the way.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I simply have a hard time believing that
there aren't sufficient private sector contractors out there. And if
the Federal Government needs to set some standards and say we will only
take dogs or companies that are licensed this way or that way, they can
do that. But to get in the business of competing is simply wrong.
I would urge adoption of the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the distinguished subcommittee Chair on the Transportation Committee
and a member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the simple answer to Mr. Flake is, this
saves the taxpayers money. And I know that is a concern to the
gentleman.
We have here certified breeding stock that was donated to the
Government of the United States of America by the Australian Customs
Service that has a great line of dogs that are easily trained and have
a low failure rate once they reach maturity.
The gentleman obviously doesn't know much about dogs. And in fact, I
would say there might even be a security risk. There are not a lot of
breeders in the U.S. who are training for this specific purpose. In
fact, many police agencies now have to buy their dogs from Germany.
Remember the Hamburg cell? Do you want them infiltrating our dog
program, maybe with secret German commands that we don't know? I mean,
come on. This is a national security issue, to have a little fun with
the gentleman.
But the point is, these dogs are great stock. It is less expensive.
They go to a foster home for a year. That isn't a year that you would
have to pay for with a breeder, and then they get their final training.
They have a very low failure rate. That again saves money for the
program.
We are saving money here. We are providing a vital service. The
gentleman doesn't strike the previous section of the bill, 201, which
requires a dramatic increase in dogs for the program, which is fully
warranted because they are extraordinarily effective deterrents, and
they are very good at detecting problems, explosives, drugs and other
contraband.
So I would say that the gentleman really should withdraw his
amendment if he is interested in saving the taxpayers money.
Privatization for private profits' sake is not the way to serve our
taxpayers and our security well in this matter.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield
30 seconds to the distinguished Chair of the Transportation Committee,
Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the godfather of security dogs, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), would probably be surprised at
this debate unfolding this afternoon.
When I was Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, we were doing a major
security act, he came to me with this idea of using dogs as a
supplement to security, and I agreed to it. We included the language,
and it has proceeded now to this stage of breeding special dogs that
have staying power and the ability to cleanse their system of
previously inhaled items in order to sustain the work of security.
The gentleman's amendment is misguided.
{time} 1700
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me just make two points.
There is nobody on our committee who is more dedicated to this issue
than Mr. Rogers. There is also no one in the Congress who I know that
is more dedicated to contracting out than Mr. Rogers, his dedication on
this issue and the fact that we have to realize that it is more
important to know the value of something rather than just the price.
The fact is, this is a situation where both the price and the value
call for us to go forward with this program. This is an issue of
Homeland Security. We can trivialize it. We can have some fun with it.
But the fact is it is a very, very important issue. So I ask for defeat
of the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I do want to go back to one
question the gentleman from Arizona had, and that was the cost.
Roughly, we are spending about $500,000 on this TSA breeding and
training program. It trains about 50 dogs a year now. It can double
that capacity with this.
This breeding is very important, particularly at this facility
because it is on the cutting edge. I would urge this Congress to
recognize how significant it is that we are able to produce this kind
of dog here, and I would tell you that I have also been a big advocate
on the DOD side as well of our trying to create more breeding programs
domestically. I would like to see them be private, frankly, but we
don't have that capacity right now that can put the standard of quality
of dogs out that we need so that we don't have to rely on foreign
sources for these dogs. Because I can assure you we are not getting the
first quality and the quantity that we need.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is
truly a matter of national security both in TSA and I think in DOD.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to close, let me just thank
Mr. Rogers for the underlying language and make the point again that
this is a question of security and to contract out, privatize the
breeding of these dogs and/or to use foreign-bred dogs may raise a
question in terms of source, resource, and utilization.
This is good language in this bill that allows TSA to continue its
program, particularly since we are expanding rail security and
therefore needing the increase in the canine breed.
I would ask my colleague to defeat the Flake amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3136]]
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Flake:
Strike section 107 and redesignate the succeeding sections
accordingly and conform the table of contents.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 107 of
the underlying bill. This section authorizes $87 million for a new
Homeland Security grant program for private bus companies.
I and some of my colleagues have expressed concern about what we see
as Homeland Security grant waste. It is everywhere in the country. It
is in my district. It is in virtually every district across the
country.
I pointed out in a recent meeting that in my own district there is
some Homeland Security funding going to things like synchronization of
street lights. It shouldn't come from the Federal Government. It needs
to be done, should be done, by local governments. In this case, this is
activity that should be done by the private companies themselves.
We have seen Homeland Security grants in recent years go to protect
mushroom festivals, lawn mower races, investigations into bingo halls,
and puppet show performances. There seems to be no end to the waste.
Yet now we are going to authorize a new Homeland Security grant program
to go to private bus operators like the Hampton Jitney?
For those who have not ridden on the Hampton Jitney, it is a private
bus service that brings wealthy East Side Manhattanites to their beach
homes in the Hamptons. The Hampton Jitney and other private bus
companies such as Greyhound and Peter Pan Bus Lines have received
Homeland Security grant dollars under the Intercity Bus Security Grant
program in 2005.
This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. These are for-profit
enterprises that should not be underwritten by the taxpayer.
This amendment to eliminate this wasteful spending is supported by an
array of taxpayer groups across the country. I would urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this
amendment striking the bus security grant provided in this bill.
The underlying jurisdiction of this particular subcommittee and
Homeland Security includes responsibility of over-the-road buses. We
plan to look even more extensively at the necessary security
requirements of making sure that people who travel in bus
transportation likewise deserve the coverage and security that we can
provide. More people ride over-the-road buses and more communities and
destinations are served by those buses than any other form of intercity
passenger transportation.
Jitney-type buses are not the only forms of buses, but they are part
of the bus transportation of this country. Buses and bus terminals have
been the targets of suicide bombers in countries like Iraq, Israel,
Pakistan, and elsewhere in the world. The question for the Homeland
Security Department and the Homeland Security Committee is to be
preventative in front of the tragedy, not behind it. This legislation
is to get us in front, to look at areas that we have not looked at
before.
Worldwide over the last 80 years, 47 percent of surface
transportation terrorist attacks have involved buses. We have seen the
horrific tragedy. We have seen the loss of lives, the loss of lives of
children. We must invest the money needed to protect bus passengers;
and I believe the gentleman's amendment may be well-intended but,
frankly, underestimates the need of security measures for buses and
undermines the bill.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that in 2005 I mentioned
there is already an Intercity Bus Security Grant award program. Under
this program, since 2005, Academy Express LLC has received $267,279;
Greyhound Lines has received $5,471,365; Trans-Bridge Lines, $466,611.
How do you decide which private sector business gets the grant and
which ones don't? What about a group like, as I mentioned, the Hampton
Jitney? It is hardly a model of an intercity where it is just taking
people that can't afford to ride the bus. It goes to the Hamptons. Yet
we are subsidizing that.
Here is another one. It is called the Hampton Luxury Liner. This is
another one that would qualify, that would be eligible to receive
grants under this program. They advertise complimentary snacks,
complimentary beverage, a feature movie. The latest periodicals,
newspapers, and magazines are handed out to those patrons who ride
those bus lines, yet they will be eligible to receive grants, taxpayer
money, to subsidize their business.
Why are we doing this kind of corporate welfare? Where are those who
stand against corporate welfare? When are they going to stand up and
say, enough is enough, we shouldn't be doing this? We are wasting too
much money in the Homeland Security program that should be actually
spent in threat-based programs where there are real, actual threats,
instead of simply spread around by formula or favor around the country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished subcommittee Chair of the Transportation
Committee, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
First, to correct the gentleman, it is not a new program. It is an
ongoing program.
However, we are going to add an element. No longer will it just be
competitive. It will be risk-based.
Now, he is true. On the Republican watch, when they controlled the
House, the Senate, and the White House, there were scandalous and
wasteful expenditures of funds by the early startup of the Department
of Homeland Security, which actually I opposed creating that giant new
bureaucracy. I thought we could have done it in a much more effective
way.
However, I serve on the committee now that has jurisdiction over
that. We are cleaning up the mess you guys created. This is a risk-
based program. It is competitive.
Now, are we are telling the 800 million people a year who ride buses
in the U.S. they are third or fourth class? The gentleman says it is a
private undertaking; they shouldn't even be able to get risk-based
competitive grants. Well, would you abandon aviation security, too?
That is also a private industry. Rail? Well, most of that is private,
with the exception of Amtrak. All of maritime is private, so I guess we
will sort of abandon the ports.
If you follow that principle to its illogical conclusion, we would
not spend public taxpayer dollars to defend any mode of transportation
in this country, with very narrow exceptions. That is not the criteria
that we need to apply here: risk-based, competitive.
Now, what happened after 9/11? How did people get around the country?
We need alternate modes.
An important Federal official was here on 9/11. He had to get back to
Oregon. He took Amtrak. Other people took the bus system. So you have
got to understand redundancy. You have got to understand risk. And,
hopefully, we will provide the oversight that was lacking before to
make sure that we don't have any more of those scandalous things that
he talked about. Those are the past. That was on the all-Republican
watch. We will do better.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the talk about cleaning up the
extravagant spending in the past. I applaud it. I just don't see it. I
just wish that you would say, all right, this was a scandal.
We gave out millions and millions of dollars to private bus companies
and others. Yet how are we going to fix it? We are going to create a
new authorized program, a new one on top of this.
[[Page H3137]]
Instead of saying, let's go in and find the waste, fraud, and abuse
that was there before, we are not doing that. We are adding a new
program.
What this amendment does is simply strikes funding for the new
authorization so we don't do more. If we do need these expenditures
that are risk-based, then let's take out the formula funding that we
are already doing.
If you are in the majority and you have the power to do it, please
don't blame those in the past. I have no brief for what we did before.
I didn't vote for the creation of the Department. But if there is waste
and abuse, let's take care of it. Let's not add to it. And that is what
we are seeking to do with this amendment. Don't go any further.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Arizona,
we have added the risk element which wasn't there previously. And he is
right. We are still confronted with the Bush administration. But I feel
that the new TSA administrator is the best we have ever had, and let's
give him the tools he needs to do his job properly. Risk-based,
competitive grants. If he doesn't find there is risk in the intercity
bus service, then he shouldn't give out the grants. I think he will
find plenty of meritorious, risk-based, competitive grants that will
help better protect the traveling public in this vital mode of
transportation.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying we are already
spending millions and millions, tens of millions of dollars on programs
to make sure that bus travel and other modes of transportation travel
are safe. Let's not add another program so that the Hampton Jitney and
other private sector businesses can continue to receive this kind of
corporate welfare. We can't keep doing this. We have a massive deficit
and a huge debt. When are we going to say, let's stop authorizing new
programs like this?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I will just finish. I will say again, let's
not authorize a new program when we concede that there is considerable
waste in the current program.
To say that we simply can't address what is in the past, these
programs are continuing forward. Let's simply say, let's take from this
formula, the money that is distributed by formula and favor, and apply
it toward the real risks out there, rather than creating new
authorization for new spending on programs that can be taken care of
elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me close, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flake has one philosophy about security, and that is narrow and
let us not move forward. The underlying bill makes a whole new
statement to America, that we are planning on reviewing those areas
that are failing in security and improve them.
Has anyone heard of the eighth grade school bus trip, where children
fill up a long-distance bus going somewhere that you hope your children
will return from?
{time} 1715
That is what we are trying to improve, the tragedy that may occur
when people are using over-the-road buses. This is what this program
is. It is not a program of waste; it is based on risk. As well, we are
holding TSA accountable in the utilization of funds.
This is a bad amendment that undermines the new idea, which is to
make sure that all aspects of America's security are both reviewed and
provided resources so we can do the right thing and move forward with
the right program that is fiscally responsible, but also provides the
security necessary.
This amendment undermines the underlying bill and certainly takes
away the necessary security for over-the-road buses. I ask my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I strongly oppose this amendment striking the bus security grants
provided in this bill.
More people ride over-the-road buses, and more communities and
destinations are served by those buses, than any other form of
intercity passenger transportation.
Buses and bus terminals have been the targets of suicide bombers in
Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world.
Worldwide, over the last 80 years, 47% of surface transportation
terrorist attacks have involved buses.
We must invest the money needed to protect bus passengers.
I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Lynch
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 110-74.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Lynch:
At the end of section 109, add the following:
(g) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than one year after
the issuance of guidelines under subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall conduct a survey regarding the satisfaction
of workers regarding the effectiveness and adequacy of the
training programs. In addition, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees regarding
the results of the survey and the progress of providers of
covered transportation in meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (d).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Bennie
Thompson, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Ranking Member
Peter King for their great work on this bill.
This amendment actually strengthens the worker training requirements
contained in H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security
Act, by ensuring that Congress is kept informed of the progress that
must be made in rail and mass transportation providers providing basic
security training to their front line workers.
Specifically, this amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland
Security within 1 year of issuing the worker training guidance mandated
by section 109 of this bill to submit a comprehensive progress report
to Congress on the steps that rail and mass transit entities have taken
to meet the bill's worker-training requirements.
Notably, this report must also include the result of a worker survey
conducted by the Department on whether our front line rail workers and
mass transit employees have actually received basic security training.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment stems from the reluctance on the part of
the Department of Homeland Security and the rail industry carriers to
make worker training a priority.
Back in November, Chairman Thompson and I addressed the National Rail
Symposium here in Washington, a rail security conference attended by
rail workers, union representatives, industry experts, and
transportation scholars. The symposium marked the release of a key rail
security study prepared by the National Rail College which noted that
our Nation's rail workers continue to lack basic and necessary
emergency and anti-terrorism training.
The National Labor College study came on the heels of a 2005 Rail
Worker Safety Report prepared by the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Rail Security Conference based on over 4,000 surveys
completed by the members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees.
Regrettably, that report revealed that 84 percent, of rail workers
[[Page H3138]]
surveyed had not received any terrorism prevention training within the
last year, and that 64 percent had not ever been trained in their
railroad emergency response plan.
Mr. Chairman, reports that our locomotive engineers, our train crews,
conductors, track workers, bridge and building trade employees, our
electricians and all other front line rail employees have not received
basic security training, are particularly troubling, given that the
pattern of terrorist activity around the globe continues to be markedly
centered on rail and mass transit.
You can follow the pattern of attacks, Mr. Chairman. Whether it be in
1995 with the sarin gas attacks in Tokyo, the 1995 attacks by the
Algerian rebels in Paris, the 2004 suicide bombings of the Moscow metro
rail car by Chechen separatists, the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the
2005 London train bombings, or recently the 2006 Mumbai train bombings,
terrorists have indicated that this is a preferred area of terrorism,
and there is no indication that there is any let-up here. Their
willingness to execute bold attacks on rail and transit systems
worldwide continues.
Yet despite these lessons learned, our rail and mass transit workers
still lack basic and necessary security training, and since 9/11 we
have spent over $24 billion on aviation security versus less than $600
million on rail and transit. The Rail Security Summit that we had in
Boston not long ago revealed the fact that very few of these workers
have been trained at all.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as well
as the main bill, bipartisan legislation that is the result of good
work on the part of Chairman Thompson, again Ranking Member King of the
Homeland Security Committee, as well as Chairman Oberstar and also Mr.
Mica, the ranking member of the Transportation Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who claims the time in opposition?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time
in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a worthy
amendment. We need information of this nature. In hearings that I
conducted last year as the Chair of the relevant subcommittee and in
hearings we have had this year, we have had conflicting bits of
information from those in management and those representing labor as to
the length and breadth of the training programs that are available and
that have been actually implemented. We never got a definitive answer
in that regard, even though we requested it from both sides.
Therefore, this amendment I think will be of benefit not only to the
Department, but to those of us in this body such that we might be able
to make a determination as to the extent and effectiveness, as well as
adequacy, of the security training programs that we have been told are
already in effect, but now that are specifically required under section
109 of this bill.
Under this amendment, the Secretary would submit to us a report on
the results of the survey and the progress of the providers of the
covered transportation, and that is something that we have been lacking
in the past. So I thank the gentleman for this amendment.
This bill requires mandatory security training programs for all rail,
mass transit and over-the-road bus employees and requires that the
employers provide such training within 1 year of the issuance of
regulations. In order for us to exercise our proper oversight, this
information is necessary. In order for us to put forth appropriate
prodding with respect to both the employers and the employees in this
regard, I think this survey will be very, very beneficial.
Having said that with reference to the specifics of this, let me just
remark on some things that have been said on this floor about where we
have been previous to this bill.
The fact of the matter is that those of us on this committee, on a
bipartisan basis, for at least the last 3 years I have been here, and I
have been assured before that with the select committee, we have worked
to try and respond in an appropriate way to the threats coming from 9/
11 and the things that we have learned subsequent to 9/11. It is true
that in the immediate response to 9/11 the administration and the
Congress worked together and in some ways pushed money out the door
without a risk-based analysis.
That has changed over the last number of years. There has been a
commitment on a bipartisan basis in this committee and on this floor
and in the Senate and in the conference in all the bills that we have
passed that a risk-based assessment is necessary for a strategy for our
tactics and our grants. Now, I will say I think we are more enlightened
on this side of the Capitol than maybe some of our friends over in the
other body in terms of how we make sure that we are dedicated to a
risk-based analysis, but we have been going forward with that.
Also I would like to say with respect to the administration,
Secretary Chertoff, his number two, his number three and the head of
TSA, have all committed themselves publicly and privately and I think
in their actions to a risk-based analysis.
We are all in this together. I don't think there is any disagreement
on the risk-based analysis being absolutely essential to tactics, to
strategy, and to grants. It is in this bill, as it should be; it was in
the bills that we passed over the last 2 years, as it should have been;
and it is in the actions of the current administration.
So I just wanted to make that clear. I believe the gentleman's
amendment will be helpful in gauging the progress made in terms of
training in this very serious area and giving us the kind of
information necessary so that we can make informed judgments in the
years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, just on the point of the risk analysis and
the risk-based strategy here, I do want to note that in our rail
conference, our summit on rail security, at one point I did ask the
union representative of Amtrak and some of the train crews that were
present where they worked. They explained they are the train crews that
travel on the trains that go beneath New York City. They run the
Northeast corridor from basically Boston to Washington, D.C.
I asked them if they had been trained on evacuation procedures in the
tunnels beneath New York City and they explained to me that, no, they
had not been trained on evacuating train passengers from the maze of
tunnels beneath New York City. I think reason and experience would
agree that that is something that would be included in our risk-based
strategy.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Training is a critical component of my bill.
We specifically added training language to the bill because I knew
that our Nation's rail, public transportation and over-the-road bus
employees were not receiving the necessary security training.
Representative Lynch's amendment goes one step further--it mandates a
survey of the satisfaction of workers regarding the effectiveness and
adequacy of the training.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
Amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered
[[Page H3139]]
by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 199, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
AYES--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Boyda (KS)
NOT VOTING--14
Andrews
Campbell (CA)
Carson
Cuellar
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Reynolds
Sullivan
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1752
Messrs. MILLER of North Carolina, COURTNEY, and CLEAVER changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cohen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 188, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 195]
AYES--237
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
[[Page H3140]]
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Andrews
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Donnelly
Graves
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lamborn
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Sires
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that less
than 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1800
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 195, I put my card in the
machine but was inadvertently not recorded. I should have been recorded
as a ``no.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130,
noes 299, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--130
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Reichert
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--299
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Radanovich
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes left to vote.
{time} 1808
Mr. ELLISON and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
[[Page H3141]]
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98,
noes 332, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 197]
AYES--98
Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boyda (KS)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dingell
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gingrey
Granger
Graves
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
NOES--332
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Andrews
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1815
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Solis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1401) to
improve the security of railroads, public transportation, and over-the-
road buses in the United States, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 270, reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I demand a re-vote on the
Thompson and the Cohen amendments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
The Clerk will redesignate the first amendment on which a separate
vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
Section 2(2)(E), strike ``railroad and transit cars'' and
insert ``railroad cars, public transportation cars and buses,
and over-the-road buses''.
Section 2(6)(B), strike ``the public transportation
designated recipient providing the transportation'' and
insert'' the designated recipient''.
Section 2(14), strike the period after ``over-the-road
bus'' and insert ``--''.
After section 2, insert, the following:
SEC. 3. NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.
(a) No Preemption of State Law.--Nothing in section 20106
of title 49, United States Code, preempts a State cause of
action, or any damages recoverable in such an action,
including neglignce, recklessness, and intentional misconduct
claims, unless compliance with State law would make
compliance with Federal requirements impossible. Nothing in
section 20106 of title 49, United States Code, confers
Federal jurisdiction of a question for such a cause of
action.
(b) Secretarial Power.--Section 20106 of title 49, United
States Code, preempts only positive laws, regulations, or
orders by executive or legislative branch officials that
expressly address railroad safety or security. The Secretary
and the Secretary of Transportation have the power to preempt
such positive enactments by substantially subsuming the same
subject matter, pursuant to proper administrative procedures.
[[Page H3142]]
Section 101(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 103, strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation,'' each place it appears, except subsection
(o).
Section 103(c)(1), strike ``high-or'' and insert ``high-
or''.
Section 103(e), strike ``vulnerabilities and security
plans''and insert ``a vulnerability assessment and security
plan''.
Section 103(k)(3)--
(1) strike ``those submissions'' and insert ``such
submission''; and
(2) strike ``vulnerability assessments and security plans''
and insert ``the vulnerability assessment and security
plan''.
Section 103(o), strike ``, hereinafter referred to as
`Amtrak' ''.
Section 104(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 105(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 105(b)(2), strike ``rail'' and insert ``railroad''.
Section 105(b)(3), strike ``redevelopment and''.
Section 105(b)(4), insert ``, including stations and other
railroad transportation infrastructure owned by State or
local governments'' before the period.
Section 105(b)(12) insert ``security'' before
``inspection'' each places it appears.
Section 105(b)(16), strike ``front-line railroad
employees'' and insert ``railroad employees, including front-
line employees''.
Strike section 105(c) and insert the following:
(c) Department of Homeland Security Responsibilities.--In
carrying out the responsibilities under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) determine the requirements for recipients of grants
under this section, including application requirements;
(2) pursuant to subsection (f), determine who are the
recipients of grants under this section;
(3) pursuant to subsection (b), determine the uses for
which grant funds may be used under this section;
(4) establish priorities for uses of funds for grant
recipients under this section; and
(5) not later than 5 business days after making
determinations under paragraphs (1) through (4), transfer
grant funds under this section to the Secretary of
Transportation for distribution to the recipients of grants
determined by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
Section 105--
(1) strike subsection (f);
(2) redesignate subsections (d) through (m) as subsections
(g) through (o), respectively;
(3) insert after subsection (c), as amended, the following:
(d) Department of Transportation Responsibilities.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall distribute grant funds
under this section to the recipients of grants determined by
the Secretary under subsection (f).
(e) Monitoring and Auditing.--The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation jointly shall
monitor and audit the use of funds under this section.
(f) Eligibility.--A railroad carrier is eligible for a
grant under this section if the carrier has completed a
vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan that
the Secretary has approved under section 103. Grant funds may
only be used for permissible uses under subsection (b) to
further a rail security plan.
Section 105(j), as redesignated (relating to standards)--
(1) strike ``The Secretary shall require a'' and insert
``A'';
(2) after ``108'' insert ``shall be required''; and
(3) strike ``Amtrak'' and insert ``the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation''.
Section 105(m), as redesignated (relating to guidelines)--
(1) strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(2) strike ``recipients of grants under this section'' the
first place it appears and insert ``, to the extent that
recipients of grants under this section use contractors or
subcontractors, such recipients''.
Section 105 strike subsection (n), as redesignated.
Section 105, redesignate subsection (o), as redesignated,
as subsection (n).
Section 106, strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation,'' each place it appears.
Section 106(b)(2), insert ``, including stations and other
public transportation infrastructure owned by State or local
governments'' before the period.
Section 106(b)--
(1) redesignate paragraphs (10) through (17) as paragraphs
(11) through (18), respectively; and
(2) after paragraph (9) insert the following:
(10) Purchase and placement of bomb-resistant trash cans
throughout public transportation facilities, including subway
exits, entrances, and tunnels.
Section 106(b)(15), as redesignated--
(1) strike ``front-line'' before ``public''; and
(2) insert ``, including front-line employees'' after
``employees''.
Section 106(b)(16), as redesignated, after
``reimbursement'' insert ``, including reimbursement of
State, local, and tribal governments for costs,''.
Section 106(b)(17), as redesignated, after ``costs'' insert
``, including reimbursement of State, local, and tribal
governments for costs'' .
At the end of section 106(b), strike paragraph (18), as
redesignated, and insert the following:
(18) Such other security improvements as the Secretary
considers appropriate, including security improvements for
newly completed public transportation systems that are not
yet operable for passenger use.
Section 106--
(1) strike subsections (c) and (d);
(2) redesignate subsections (e) through (j) as subsections
(g) through (l), respectively; and
(3) insert after subsection (b) the following:
(c) Department of Homeland Security Responsibilities.--In
carrying out the responsibilities under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) determine the requirements for recipients of grants
under this section, including application requirements;
(2) pursuant to subsection (f), determine who are the
recipients of grants under this section;
(3) pursuant to subsection (b), determine the uses for
which grant funds may be used under this section;
(4) establish priorities for uses of funds for grant
recipients under this section; and
(5) not later than 5 business days after making
determinations under paragraphs (1) through (4), transfer
grant funds under this section to the Secretary of
Transportation for distribution to the recipients of grants
determined by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
(d) Department of Transportation Responsibilities.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall distribute grant funds
under this section to the recipients of grants determined by
the Secretary under subsection (f).
(e) Monitoring and Auditing.--The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation shall jointly
monitor and audit the use of funds under this section.
(t) Eligibility.--A designated recipient is eligible for a
grant under this section if the recipient has completed a
vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan that
the Secretary has approved under section 103. Grant funds may
only be used for permissible uses under subsection (b) to
further a public transportation security plan.
Section 106, subsection (g), as redesignated (relating to
terms and conditions), strike ``under effect'' and insert
``as in effect''.
Section 106, subsection (j), as redesignated (relating to
guidelines), strike ``recipients of grants under this
section'' the first place it appears and insert ``, to the
extent that recipients of grants under this section use
contractors or subcontractors, such recipients shall''.
Section 106, strike subsection (k), as redesignated
(relating to monitoring).
Section 106, redesignate subsection (1), as redesignated
(relating to authorization of appropriations), as subsection
(k).
Section 107, strike ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation,'' each place it appears.
Section 107(b)(1), insert: ``, including terminals and
other over-the-road bus facilities owned by State or local
governments'' before the period.
Section 107(b)(8) strike--
(1) strike ``front-line'' before ``over-the-road''; and
(2) insert ``, including front-line employees'' after
``employees''.
Section 107(b)(10), after ``reimbursement'' insert
``including reimbursement of State, local, and tribal
governments for costs,''.
Section 107(b)(12), after ``costs'' insert ``, including
reimbursement of State, local, and tribal governments for
such costs.''.
Section 107--
(1) redesignate subsections (e) through (j) as subsections
(g) through (1), respectively; and
(2) strike subsections (c) and (d) and insert the
following:
(c) Department of Homeland Security Responsibilities.--In
carrying out the responsibilities under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) determine the requirements for recipients of grants
under this section, including application requirements;
(2) pursuant to subsection (f), determine who are the
recipients of grants under this section;
(3) pursuant to subsection (b), determine the uses for
which grant funds may be used under this section;
(4) establish priorities for uses of funds for grant
recipients under this section; and
(5) not later than 5 business days of making determinations
under paragraphs (1) through (4), transfer grant funds under
this section to the Secretary of Transportation for
distribution to the recipients of grants determined by the
Secretary under paragraph (2).
(d) Department of Transportation Responsibilities.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall distribute grant funds
under this section to the recipients of grants determined by
the Secretary under subsection (f).
(e) Monitoring and Auditing.--The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation shall jointly
monitor and audit the use of funds under this section.
(f) Eligibility.--A private operator providing
transportation by an over-the-road bus is eligible for a
grant under this section if the operator has completed a
vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan that
the Secretary has approved under section 103. Grant funds may
only be used for permissible uses under subsection (b) to
further an over-the-road bus security plan.
[[Page H3143]]
Section 107, subsection (i), as redesignated (relating to
annual reports), after ``funds'' insert a period.
Section 107, subsection (j), as redesignated (relating to
guidelines), strike ``recipients of grants under this section
the first place it appears'' and insert ``to the extent that
recipients of grants under this section use contractors or
subcontractors, such recipients shall''.
Section 107, strike subsection (k) as redesignated
(relating to monitoring).
Section 107, redesignate subsection (l), as redesignated
(relating to authorization), as subsection (k).
Section 108(a)'' strike ``Amtrak'' the first place it
appears and insert ``the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation''.
Section 108(c) strike ``recipients of grants under this
section'' the first place it appears and insert ``, to the
extent that recipients of grants under this section use
contractors or subcontractors, such recipients shall''.
Section 109(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,'' .
Section 109(a)(1), insert a comma after ``employees''.
Section 109(b)(3) strike ``and fire fighter workers'' and
insert ``or emergency response personnel''.
Section 109(c)(9), strike ``Any other subject'' and insert
``Other security training activities that''.
Section 109(d)(1), strike ``in final form''.
Section 109(d)(2), insert ``proposal'' after ''training
program''.
Section 109(d)(3), insert ``proposal'' after ``training
program''.
Section 109(d)(4), insert ``as necessary'' after
``workers''.
Section 110(a), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
Section 110(c), strike ``, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,'' .
Section 110(c)(l), insert ``working jointly with the
Secretary of Transportation,'' before ``consolidates''.
Section 111(b)(3) strike ``freight''.
Section 111(b), strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6),
redesignate paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and insert the
following after paragraph (6):
(7) to assess the vulnerabilities and risks associated with
new rail and public transportation construction projects
prior to their completion; and
Section 111(c)(2)(E)--
(1) strike ``including,'' and insert ``, including''; and
(2) strike ``Institution or Tribal University'' and insert
``Institutions or Tribal Universities''.
Strike section 112 of the bill and insert the following
(and make all necessary technical and conforming changes):
SEC. 112. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged,
demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded,
investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against,
including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a
security clearance or by any other security access
determination, if such discrimination is due, in whole or in
part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or
intended to be done by the covered individual--
(1) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a violation of any law, rule, or regulation
relating to rail, public transportation, or over-the-road-bus
security, which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a threat to rail, public transportation, or over-
the-road-bus security, or which the covered individual
reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste, or
mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for
rail, public transportation, or over-the-road-bus
security, if the information or assistance is provided to
or the investigation is conducted by--
(A) by a Federal, State, or local regulatory or law
enforcement agency (including an office of the Inspector
General under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.; Public Law 95-452);
(B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or
the Government Accountability Office; or
(C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered
individual (or such other person who has the authority to
investigate, discover, or terminate);
(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule,
or regulation relating to rail, public transportation, or
over-the-road bus security; or
(3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation relating to rail public
transportation, or over-the-road bus security.
(b) Enforcement Action.
(1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge
or other discrimination by any person in violation of
subsection (a) may--
(A) in the case of a covered individual who is employed by
the Department or the Department of Transportation, seek
relief in accordance with--
(i) the provisions of title 5, United States Code, to the
same extent and in the same manner as if such individual were
seeking relief from a prohibited personnel practice described
in section 2302(b)(8) of such title; and
(ii) the amendments made by section 112A; except that, if
the disclosure involved consists in whole or in part of
classified or sensitive information, clauses (i) and (ii)
shall not apply, and such individual may seek relief in the
same manner as provided by section 112B;
(B) in the case of a covered individual who is a contractor
or subcontractor of the Department or the Department of
Transportation, seek relief in accordance with section 112B;
and
(C) in the case of any other covered individual, seek
relief in accordance with the provisions of this section,
with any petition or other request for relief under this
section to be initiated by filing a complaint with the
Secretary of Labor.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(C) shall be
governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section
42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person
named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1)(C) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set
forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph
(1)(C) shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the
date on which the violation occurs.
(3) De novo review.--With respect to a complaint under
paragraph (1)(C), if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a
final decision within 180 days after the filing of the
complaint (or, in the event that a final order or decision is
issued by the Secretary of Labor, whether within the 180-day
period or thereafter, then, not later than 90 days after such
an order or decision is issued), the covered individual may
bring an original action at law or equity for de novo review
in the appropriate district court of the United States, which
shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to
the amount in controversy, and which action shall, at the
request of either party to such action, be tried by the court
with a jury.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any
action under subsection (b)(1)(C) shall be entitled to all
relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
(2) Damages.--Relief in an action under subsection
(b)(1)(C) (including an action described in subsection
(b)(3)) shall include--
(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
covered individual would have had, but for the
discrimination;
(B) the amount of any back pay, with interest; and
(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
(3) Possible relief.--Relief in an action under subsection
(b)(1)(C) may include punitive damages in an amount not to
exceed the greater of 3 times the amount of any compensatory
damages awarded under this section or $5,000,000.
(d) Use of State Secrets Privilege.--
(1) If, in any action for relief sought by a covered
individual in accordance with the provisions of subsection
(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C), the Government agency moves to
withhold information from discovery based on a claim that
disclosure would be inimical to national security by
asserting the privilege commonly referred to as the ``state
secrets privilege'', and if the assertion of such privilege
prevents the covered individual from establishing an element
in support of the covered individual's claim, the court shall
resolve the disputed issue of fact or law in favor of the
covered individual, provided that, in an action brought by a
covered individual in accordance with the provisions of
subsection (b)(1)(A) or (B), an Inspector General
investigation under section 112B has resulted in substantial
confirmation of that element, or those elements, of the
covered individual's claim.
(2) In any case in which the Government agency asserts the
privilege commonly referred to as the ``state secrets
privilege'', whether or not an Inspector General has
conducted an investigation with respect to the alleged
discrimination, the head of the Government agency involved
shall, at the same time it asserts the privilege, issue a
report to authorized Members of Congress, accompanied by a
classified annex if necessary, describing the reasons for the
assertion, explaining why the court hearing the matter does
not have the ability to maintain the protection of classified
information related to the assertion, detailing the steps the
agency has taken to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement
with the covered individual, setting forth the date on which
the classified information at issue will be declassified, and
providing all relevant information about the underlying
substantive matter.
(e) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
employing a covered individual described in subsection
(b)(l)(C) to commit an act prohibited by subsection (a). Any
person who willfully violates this section by terminating or
retaliating against any such covered individual who makes a
claim under this section shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(2) Reporting requirement.--
(A) In general.-- The Attorney General shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the
enforcement of paragraph (1).
[[Page H3144]]
(B) Contents.--Each such report shall--
(i) identify each case in which formal charges under
paragraph (1) were brought;
(ii) describe the status or disposition of each such case;
and
(iii) in any actions under subsection (b)(l)(C) in which
the covered individual was the prevailing party or the
substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any
formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if
not, the reasons therefor.
(f) No Preemption.--Nothing in this section, section 112A,
or section 112B preempts or diminishes any other safeguards
against discrimination, demotion, discharge, suspension,
threats, harassment, reprimand, retaliation, or any other
manner of discrimination provided by Federal or State law.
(g) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this
section, section 112A, or section 112B shall be deemed to
diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any covered
individual under any Federal or State law or under any
collective bargaining agreement. The rights and remedies in
this section, section 112A and section 112B may not be waived
by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
(h) Definitions.--In this section, section 112A and section
112B the following definitions apply:
(1) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual''
means an employee of--
(A) the Department;
(B) the Department of Transportation;
(C) a contractor or subcontractor; and
(D) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)) and who is a
provider of covered transportation.
(2) Lawful.--The term ``lawful'' means not specifically
prohibited by law, except that, in the case of any
information the disclosure of which is specifically
prohibited by law or specifically required by Executive order
to be kept classified in he interest of national defense or
the conduct of foreign affairs, any disclosure of such
information to any Member of Congress, committee of Congress,
or other recipient authorized to receive such information,
shall be deemed lawful.
(3) Contractor.--The term ``contractor'' means a person who
has entered into a contract with the Department, the
Department of Transportation, or a provider of covered
transportation.
(4) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
(A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(A) or (1)(B), an employee as defined by section 2105 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(B) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(C) or (l)(D), any officer, partner, employee, or agent.
(5) Subcontractor.--The term ``subcontractor''--
(A) means any person, other than the contractor, who offers
to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials, equipment,
or services of any kind under a contract with the Department,
the Department of Transportation, or a provider of covered
transportation; and
(B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes
general supplies to the contractor or a higher tier
subcontractor.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' means a corporation,
partnership, State entity, business association of any kind,
trust, joint-stock company, or individual.
Section 113(c), strike ``the Secretary of Transportation
and''.
Section 116(b), strike ``designate the Center'' and insert
``select an institution of higher education to operate the
National Transportation Security Center of Excellence''.
Section 116(c)--
(1) redesignate paragraphs (1) through (3) as paragraphs
(2) through (4), respectively; and
(2) insert after the subsection heading the following:
(1) Consortium.--The institution of higher education
selected under subsection (b) shall execute agreements with
other institutions of higher education to develop a
consortium to assist in accomplishing the goals of the
Center.
Section 116(c)(3), as redesignated, insert ``or'' before
``Tribal''.
Section 116, strike ``Consortium'' each place it appears
and insert ``consortium'' .
Section 118, after ``risk'' strike all that follows through
``security''.
Section 120(d)(1), strike ``any rule'' and all that follows
through ``an employer'' and insert the following: ``if an
employer performs background checks to satisfy any rule,
regulation, directive, or other guidance issued by the
Secretary regarding background checks of covered individuals,
the employer shall be prohibited''.
Section 123(a), strike ``the Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives'' and
insert ``the appropriate congressional committees''.
Section 124, strike ``railcar'' and insert ``railroad car''
each place it appears.
Section 124(b)(1), strike subparagraph (B) and insert the
following:
(B) More than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of a division 1.1,
1.2, or 1.3 explosive, as defined in section 173.50 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, in a motor vehicle, rail
car, or freight container.
Section 124(b)(3)(A), strike ``railyards'' and insert
``railroad yards''.
Section 124 (f), insert ``railroad'' before ``carrier''.
Section 125(d)--
(1) redesignate paragraph (16) as paragraph (17);
(2) in paragraph (15), strike ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(3) after paragraph (15), insert the following:
(16) nonprofit employee labor organizations; and
Section 124(f), insert ``railroad'' before ``carrier''.
Section 125 at the end, insert the following:
(f) Savings Provision.--An action of the Secretary or the
Secretary of Transportation under this Act is not an
exercise, under section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(l), of statutory
authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations
affecting occupational safety or health.
Section 126(a)(1), ``The Secretary shall'' and insert ``The
Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation shall
jointly''.
Section 126(a)(2), strike ``the Secretary shall'' and
insert ``the Secretary, and the Secretary of Transportation
shall jointly''.
Section 126(a)(3), insert ``and the Secretary of
Transportation'' after ``Secretary''.
Section 126(b)(3), insert ``and the Secretary of
Transportation'' after ``Secretary''.
Section 128, strike ``shall'' and insert ``should''.
Section 128, insert ``(a) Preference.--'' before ``In''.
Section 128 at the end, insert the following:
(b) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall
affect grant recipient requirements pursuant to section
5323(j) of title 49, United States Code, section 24305(f) of
title 49, United States Code, and the Buy American Act (41
U.S.C. 10).
Section 130(a), strike ``undeclared passengers or
contraband, including''.
Section 130 at the end, insert the following:
(c) Use of Transportation Data.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary shall make use of data collected
and maintained by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 131, strike the text and insert the following: ``In
carrying out section 119, the Secretary shall require each
provider of covered transportation, including contractors and
subcontractors, assigned to a high-risk tier under section
102 to submit the names of their employees to the Secretary
to conduct checks of their employees against available
terrorist watchlists and immigration status databases.''.
At the end of title I, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 132. REVIEW OF GRANT-MAKING EFFICIENCY.
(a) Annual Study.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an annual study for each of the first 3
years after the enactment of this title regarding the
administration and use of the grants awarded under sections
105, 106, and 107 of this title, including--
(1) the efficiency of the division of the grant-making
process, including whether the Department of Transportation's
role in distributing, auditing, and monitoring the grant
funds produces efficiency compared to the consolidation of
these responsibilities in the Department of Homeland
Security;
(2) whether the roles of the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation in the
administration of the grants permit the grants to be awarded
and used in a timely and efficient manner and according to
their intended purposes;
(3) the use of grant funds, including whether grant funds
are used for authorized purposes.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit an annual report to the appropriate
congressional committees on the results of the study for each
of the first 3 years after enactment of this title, including
any recommendations for improving the administration and use
of the grant funds awarded under sections 105, 106, and 107.
SEC. 133. ROLES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
The Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal
official responsible for transportation security. The roles
and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of Transportation in carrying out sections
101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 123, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, and 201 of this Act are
the roles and responsibilities of such Departments pursuant
to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law
107-71); the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (Public Law 108-458); the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan required by Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 7; Executive Order 13416: Strengthening Surface
Transportation Security, dated December 5, 2006; the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and the
Department of Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities,
dated September 28, 2004; the Annex to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department and the Department of
Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities concerning
Railroad Security, dated September 28, 2006; the Annex to the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and the
Department of Transportation on Roles and Responsibilities
concerning Public Transportation Security, dated September 8,
2005; and any subsequent agreements between the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.
[[Page H3145]]
Section 201(a), strike ``ensure that canine detection teams
are deployed'' and insert ``encourage the deployment of
canine detection teams''.
Section 201(b), strike ``to increase'' and insert ``to
encourage an increase in''.
Strike ``rail carrier: and insert ``railroad carrier'' each
place it appears in the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, subsequent
votes on amendments in this series will be 5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 197, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 198]
AYES--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--5
Bartlett (MD)
Boyda (KS)
Gilchrest
Jones (NC)
Paul
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Boehner
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1838
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will redesignate the second
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Cohen:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. ------. ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL SOURCES.
The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall establish a program to coordinate with State
and local governments to minimize the need for transportation
of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 184, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 199]
YEAS--234
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
[[Page H3146]]
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--184
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4
Bartlett (MD)
Gilchrest
Jones (NC)
Paul
NOT VOTING--11
Andrews
Boehner
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Udall (NM)
Weller
{time} 1849
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. King of New York
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KING of New York. I am, Madam Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. King of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1401
to the Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
At the end of title I, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. ___. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES AND
MITIGATING TERRORIST THREATS RELATING TO
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) Immunity for Reporting Suspicious Behavior.--Any person
who makes or causes to be made a voluntary disclosure of any
suspicious transaction, activity or occurrence indicating
that an individual may be engaging or preparing to engage in
a matter described in subsection (b) to any employee or agent
of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Justice, any Federal,
State, or local law enforcement officer, any transportation
security officer, or to any employee or agent of a
transportation system shall be immune from civil liability to
any person under any law or regulation of the United States,
any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or
political subdivision of any State, for such disclosure.
(b) Covered Disclosures.--The matter referred to in
subsection (a) is a possible violation or attempted violation
of law or regulation relating_
(1) to a threat to transportation systems or passenger
safety or security; or
(2) to an act of terrorism, as defined in section 3077 of
title 18, United States Code, that involves or is directed
against transportation systems or passengers.
(c) Immunity for Mitigation of Threats.--Any person,
including an owner, operator or employee of a transportation
system, who takes reasonable action to mitigate a suspicious
matter described in subsection (b) shall be immune from civil
liability to any person under any law or regulation of the
United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any
State or political subdivision of any State, for such action.
(d) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a) shall not
apply to a statement or disclosure by a person that, at the
time it is made, is known by the person to be false.
(e) Attorney Fees and Costs.--If a person is named as a
defendant in a civil lawsuit for making voluntary disclosures
of any suspicious transaction or taking actions to mitigate a
suspicious matter described in subsection (b), and the person
is found to be immune from civil liability under this
section, the person shall be entitled to recover from the
plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney's fees as allowed
by the court.
(f) Retroactive Application.--This section shall apply to
activities and claims occurring on or after November 20,
2006.
Mr. KING of New York (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, all our lives changed on
September 11. The government tried to react the best that it could; all
levels of government have tried to come forward. But one of the most
important things we have done is ask our local citizens, to ask the
average person to do what they can to avoid a terrorist attack. We have
asked them, for instance, there are signs at trains and subways and
means of transportation all over the country which say, if you see
something, say something.
Yet we saw the incident this past November in Minnesota where
passengers on a US Airways flight reported what they saw as suspicious
activity. That resulted in six imams being removed from the plane. Now,
that is a matter that is going to be in litigation between US Airways
and those six imams.
But what is absolutely disgraceful is to find out that lawyers are
coming forward and advocacy groups are coming forward to represent
those imams and suing, attempting to find the identity of those
passengers, those citizens who acted in good faith, who responded to
their government and reported what they deemed to be suspicious
activity.
Madam Speaker, that is absolutely disgraceful. What this motion to
recommit would do would be to provide immunity for any citizen, any
individual that comes forward and reports suspicious activity in good
faith. If they do, they will be indemnified. This is the very least we
can do, to stand by good people who come forward and report suspicious
activity.
I mean, just think if we had citizens who had seen what was happening
on September 11, who saw people sitting not in their assigned seats,
who had seen them being disruptive, who had seen them asking for
extended seatbelts when they didn't need them and yet, somehow, those
people didn't come forward because they were afraid of being sued.
[[Page H3147]]
If we are going to be serious, as a Nation, about fighting Islamic
terrorism, then we have to stand by our people who come forward and
report suspicious activity. So I think it is absolutely essential that
this motion to recommit be passed. I can't imagine anyone being opposed
to it.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who has been a true leader on this issue.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York for working with me on this motion to recommit that we are
offering today. I believe that we are going to make this legislation
much better.
Ever since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been telling the
American people that they should immediately report any suspicious
activity. This important step is one of the best ways that we have to
stop terrorism. In essence, the public is the eyes and ears for the
security of the Nation.
Sadly, a lawsuit has been filed in Minnesota which named as
defendants the Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves
and their country. These everyday people have now found themselves
subject to a lawsuit for simply reporting what they thought in good
faith was suspicious activity.
We are in grave danger when terrorists and their sympathizers use our
freedoms against us. Terrorists have abused our Nation's immigration
system, our foreign student travel visa opportunities, and open
society's freedom to travel.
On 9/11 the hijackers knew how the crew on the plane would respond
and used that knowledge against the air crews to carry out their deadly
attacks.
Now, we have imams who behaved in methods similar to those 9/11
terrorists and are now using our courts to terrorize the Americans who
reported the behavior. They used a seating pattern that was similar to
the 9/11 attackers. They asked for seatbelt extensions, and then didn't
use them but laid them at their feet in an ominous gesture of
disrespect. They did not sit in assigned seats. The loud criticism of
President Bush and the war all added together to create a mood of
uncertainty among passengers who were watching them.
If we allow these lawsuits to go forward, it will have a chilling
effect on the future of American security. Today's USA Today opinion
stated the ``Clerics' lawsuit threatens the security of all passengers;
efforts to name those who reported suspicious actions has chilling
effect.'' I will submit the full article for the Record.
If we are serious about fighting terrorism, if we are serious about
protecting Americans and asking them to help protect each other, then
we must pass this motion.
If I leave my colleagues with one message about this motion, it is
simply, no American should be sued for trying to stop terrorism.
Recently, I visited Israel. There they were much more open about it.
They said, the stakes are too high. The danger is too imminent. There
is no room left in the world for political correctness.
Today we are going to make that choice on the floor of the House, to
choose political correctness or to choose to protect the people in this
country and the people who would bring the attention of suspicious
activities to the Nation's authorities.
Vote ``yes'' on today's motion to recommit and help protect
Americans.
[From USA Today, Mar. 27, 2007]
Our View on Post-9/11 Travel: Clerics' Lawsuit Threatens Security of
All Passengers
``If you see something, say something.''
Since the terror attacks of 9/11, that common-sense message
has been displayed prominently worldwide for obvious reasons.
Police and transportation authorities can't be everywhere.
Whether at an airport, bus or rail station, officials need
passengers to alert them to unattended baggage that might
contain explosives and behavior that appears out of the
ordinary.
Now the reward for being vigilant apparently includes being
dragged into a lawsuit and accused of bigotry. The wry adage
about how no good deed goes unpunished seems apt, though not
so funny.
The lawsuit grew out of an incident last November when six
Muslim clerics, returning from a religious conference in
Minneapolis, were removed from a US Airways flight after
passengers and crew raised alarms. The imams were questioned
by authorities and released. The six say they are innocent
victims of ethnic profiling for merely praying quietly in
Arabic at the terminal.
Their lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the
airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission of anti-Muslim
bias. That was expected. What's unique and especially
troubling, though, is the effort to identify an unknown
number of passengers and airline employees who reported
suspicions so they might also be included as defendants. For
example, the imams want to know the names of an elderly
couple who turned around ``to watch'' and then made cellphone
calls, presumably to authorities, as the men prayed.
This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers
willing to do exactly what authorities have requested--say
something about suspicious activity.
The imams' actions last November appeared to be either
deliberately provocative or clueless as to how others might
perceive them. Several passengers and crewmembers told
authorities that the men loudly chanted ``Allah'' several
times, cursed U.S. involvement in Iraq and switched their
seat assignments. Three imams asked for seat belt extenders,
which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a
weapon, but left them on the floor.
Under the circumstances, the pilot made a reasonable
judgment call to remove them from the plane. Some of the
facts are in dispute: The imams deny making any anti-American
remarks and say seats were changed to accommodate a blind
cleric who might need assistance. They accuse the airline of
slandering them.
US Airways can afford to defend itself and the crew in
court. Passengers who notified authorities don't have those
resources. Several lawyers have promised to represent such
passengers for free. The American Islamic Forum for
Democracy, a moderate Muslim group, will raise funds for
their defense. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., has introduced a
bill to shield from legal liability those who report
suspicious behavior.
It shouldn't have to come to that, especially if a judge
has the wisdom to throw out the complaints against the ``John
Doe'' passengers before they're identified.
As for ethnic profiling--the reprehensible practice of
discriminating solely based on ethnicity--this incident
doesn't qualify. The imams were tossed off the plane because
of suspicious behavior, which obviously can't be ignored.
Suing passengers who merely report such behavior threatens
everyone's ability to travel securely.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. In its present form I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, as you know, we just
received the motion to recommit a few minutes ago, and if I could ask
some questions of the ranking member about the motion to recommit, it
would help.
You have the motion to recommit being retroactive back until November
20, 2006. Is there any reason for that date?
Mr. KING of New York. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. November 20 was the date of the incident in
Minnesota where the passengers on the plane reported suspicious
activity to the pilots and to the flight attendants.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Have they been charged with anything, to
your knowledge?
Mr. KING of New York. If the gentleman will yield, a lawsuit is being
commenced and John Does are being named in the complaints, the John
Does for the purpose of finding out the identity of those passengers,
those good-faith passengers who came forward to report the suspicious
activity to make them defendants in the case.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. But to your knowledge no criminal
charges have been filed against the people on the plane.
Mr. KING of New York. This motion is only dealing with civil cases,
which is why they would also be indemnified for their reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I
think the issue is if individuals who were singled out, not charged
with anything in violation of the law, then why shouldn't they be able
to seek remedy in a court of law?
For the sake of discussion, Madam Speaker, all of us in this body
don't look alike, and it is clear that people could be profiled because
of their religion or their race.
{time} 1900
I think the record is clear in this country that some people are
profiled,
[[Page H3148]]
and I am wondering if people are profiled illegally, not charged with a
criminal act. They absolutely should have the ability to seek redress
in a court of law.
What I want to do is to say that there is nothing wrong with
reporting in good faith, but when it is clear that we have not defined
in a good-faith language in this motion to recommit what that is, then
a number of people in this country could be singled out for various and
sundry reasons. And what I am saying in this motion to recommit is it
sets us up to start profiling against individuals regardless of
religion, custom, or what have you.
If I am praying on a plane simply because I am afraid to fly, then I
could be singled out in the eyes of someone else. So I am clear that
this is speculative on people who look different; it is speculative on
people who perhaps act differently. I am convinced that, knowing you,
you have not proven on the committee to be a punitive person; and the
reason I say that, Mr. Ranking Member, is we should not be singling
people out for personal reasons. We need to catch bad people, but we
need to make sure that we are not profiling those individuals because
of how they look. I mean, this is America. This is the melting pot with
a rainbow.
The point that I am making, while this motion to recommit might be
well-intended, it has unintended consequences on a lot of people,
people who, for religious or other reasons, might look different; and I
think that the offerers of this motion to recommit should think about
this. Because we are not a body or a country of just one people. And if
you look at it, we should be tolerant, and tolerant doesn't mean
singling people out or having them arrested for no apparent reason
other than the fact that they look different.
Madam Speaker, I accept the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote on the
question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 304,
noes 121, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 200]
AYES--304
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Ortiz
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--121
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Stark
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Andrews
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised less
than 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1922
Messrs. Allen, Michaud, Doggett and Markey changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Hill changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the
instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill,
H.R. 1401, back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment:
At the end of title I, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. ___. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES AND
MITIGATING TERRORIST THREATS RELATING TO
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) Immunity for Reporting Suspicious Behavior.--Any person
who makes or causes to be made a voluntary disclosure of any
suspicious transaction, activity or occurrence indicating
that an individual may be engaging or preparing to engage in
a matter described in subsection (b) to any employee or agent
of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Transportation, the
[[Page H3149]]
Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, any transportation security officer, or
to any employee or agent of a transportation system shall be
immune from civil liability to any person under any law or
regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or
regulation of any State or political subdivision of any
State, for such disclosure.
(b) Covered Disclosures.--The matter referred to in
subsection (a) is a possible violation or attempted violation
of law or regulation relating_
(1) to a threat to transportation systems or passenger
safety or security; or
(2) to an act of terrorism, as defined in section 3077 of
title 18, United States Code, that involves or is directed
against transportation systems or passengers.
(c) Immunity for Mitigation of Threats.--Any person,
including an owner, operator or employee of a transportation
system, who takes reasonable action to mitigate a suspicious
matter described in subsection (b) shall be immune from civil
liability to any person under any law or regulation of the
United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any
State or political subdivision of any State, for such action.
(d) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a) shall not
apply to a statement or disclosure by a person that, at the
time it is made, is known by the person to be false.
(e) Attorney Fees and Costs.--If a person is named as a
defendant in a civil lawsuit for making voluntary disclosures
of any suspicious transaction or taking actions to mitigate a
suspicious matter described in subsection (b), and the person
is found to be immune from civil liability under this
section, the person shall be entitled to recover from the
plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney's fees as allowed
by the court.
(f) Retroactive Application.--This section shall apply to
activities and claims occurring on or after November 20,
2006.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 299,
noes 124, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 201]
AYES--299
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--124
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gingrey
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Boyda (KS)
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes left on this vote.
{time} 1933
Mr. SIMPSON and Mr. HAYES changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________