Amendment Text: H.Amdt.63 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (03/27/2007)

This Amendment appears on page H3131 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[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 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 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 A
ction 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 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 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.

                          ____________________