U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–784 PDF 2007

TRANSIT AND RAIL SECURITY

(110–13)

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(ex officio) 

(IV)

(V)

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Durbin, Marty, Managing Director Of Federal Affairs, American Chemistry 

Council .................................................................................................................. 28

Hamberger, Ed, President And Chief Executive Officer, Association Of American Railroads ....................................................................................................... 28

Millar, William, President, American Public Transit Association ....................... 8

Pantuso, Peter, President And Chief Executive Office, American Bus Association ........................................................................................................................ 8

Rabkin, Norman J., Managing Director, Homeland Security And Justice, U.S. 

Government and Accountability Office ............................................................... 8

Siano, Michael, International Executive Vice President, Amalgamated Transit 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 8 

Tolman, John P., Vice President And National Legislative Representative, 

Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers And Trainmen, A Division Of The 

Teamsters Rail Conference .................................................................................. 28

Weiderhold, Fred, Inspector General, Amtrak ...................................................... 8

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 36

Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida ............................................................................. 37

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee ............................................................................ 41

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 42

Millender-McDonald, Hon. Juanita, of California ................................................. 44

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 48

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., of California ................................................................... 54

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Durbin, Martin J. .................................................................................................... 56

Hamberger, Edward R. ........................................................................................... 64

Millar, William W. ................................................................................................... 89

Pantuso, Peter J. ..................................................................................................... 100

Rabkin, Norman J. .................................................................................................. 107

Siano, Michael .......................................................................................................... 139

Tolman, John P. ....................................................................................................... 150

Weiderhold, Fred E. ................................................................................................. 160

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hamberger, Ed, President And Chief Executive Officer, Association Of American Railroads, Comments on H.R. 1269 ............................................................ 86

Millar, William, President, American Public Transit Association:

Response to questions from Rep. Duncan .......................................................... 96

Response to questions from Rep. Brown of South Carolina ............................. 98

Pantuso, Peter, President And Chief Executive Office, American Bus Association, response to questions from Rep. DeFazio .................................................. 105

Rabkin, Norman J., Managing Director, Homeland Security And Justice, U.S. 

Government and Accountability Office, response to questions from Rep. 

DeFazio ................................................................................................................. 135

Weiderhold, Fred, Inspector General, Amtrak:

Response to questions from Rep. Duncan .......................................................... 172

Response to questions from Rep. Brown of South Carolina ............................. 175

vi


34784.001
vii


34784.002
viii


34784.003
ix


34784.004
x


34784.005
xi


34784.006
xii


34784.007
xiii


34784.008
xiv


34784.009
xv


34784.010
(1)

JOINT HEARING ON TRANSIT AND RAIL 

SECURITY 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter DeFazio 

[chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Subcommittee will come to order. This is a 

hearing on transit and rail security. 

I have some brief opening remarks. I want to apologize in advance since we had to move the hearing up, and I appreciate people 

accommodating that because of the joint address. I have something 

scheduled at 9:30 which I have to do, which is all the way over in 

Cannon. So I will be stepping out for a bit but will get back as 

quickly as I can. 

I have the honor of serving on both the Homeland Security Committee and this Committee, so this hearing is a bit repetitive for 

me, but this is a critical issue. We have to do better by transit and 

rail security in this Country. We have put a lot of attention and 

a lot of resources into aviation, and yet aviation is still a work in 

progress, but we have not paid adequate attention to transit and 

rail. Despite the fact that we know that perhaps aviation is the 

preferred target, we know that transit and rail are a target and 

have been a target, successfully attacked in other countries, and we 

need to do better to attempt to deter attacks here in the United 

States. 

Fourteen million people use public transit every day, nine and a 

half billion trips annually. Although we have estimated there is 

about $6 billion in needs, we have invested thus far on the Federal 

level only $136 million, which is obviously much less of an effort 

than we have made in the area of aviation. 

I am pleased to have our panel here today, pleased to have members here at this early hour and, with that, I would recognize the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for calling this hearing. 

Shortly after 9/11, the title of the Farm Bill in the House that 

year was changed to the Farm Security Act, and every department 

2

and agency in the Federal Government was suddenly attaching the 

word, security, to almost all of their requests. The Wall Street 

Journal wrote an editorial around that time, and they said, ‘‘Any 

bill with the word, security, in it should get double the public scrutiny and maybe four times the normal weight, lest all kinds of bad 

legislation become law.’’

About a year after 9/11, as I was driving in here one morning, 

I heard on NPR News that the new Department of Homeland Security had—they gave some specific figure like 3,278 or some kind of 

figure—well over 3,000 ideas for security devices that people had 

submitted around that same time that 750 lobbyists had suddenly 

registered as new lobbyists in this industry that had popped up 

around homeland security. 

I support homeland security grants including grants to improve 

security for transit and rail systems if the grants are used for activities that actually help protect the traveling public and if those 

activities are carried out in a cost effective manner. 

I agree that we haven’t exactly rushed to legislate in the area of 

transit and rail security. The Highways and Transit Subcommittee 

has held similar transit security hearings in the past in June of 

2004 and March of 2006, and this Committee has previously reported out, the full Committee has previously reported out, authorizing legislation for transit and over the road bus security three 

times. 

As we go down this road once again, I am concerned about 

whether we really have a handle on the costs of these programs. 

There should be an independent assessment of risk-based security 

needs. Not every transit system in the U.S. needs to receive a security grant. Not every activity that some agencies characterize as security will actually make riders safer. 

I agree that we need to do a better job of protecting the transit 

and rail riding public, but to do that we need better security grants 

management than has been provided thus far by the Department 

of Homeland Security. The Department of Transportation, which 

has the in-depth knowledge of transportation programs policy and 

operations, should manage transportation security grants. It is 

really that simple. 

Just to summarize, I can support a DOT-administered transit 

and rail security grant program that ensures that funds are allocated using a fair risk-based methodology with grant activities that 

actually improve security. But before supporting an effort, we need 

to take a closer look at the price tag and we need not to just automatically approve anything that someone attaches the word, security, to. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. With that, this is a joint hearing since it is transit 

and we also have the pleasure of being joined by the Subcommittee 

on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. With that, I recognize Chairwoman Brown for an opening statement. 

Ms. BROWN. First of all, I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for 

joining me in holding this hearing on an issue that hasn’t gotten 

the attention it needs and deserves. 

This Sunday will mark the third anniversary of the train bombing in Madrid, and we have seen terrorist attacks in London and 

3

India in each year since. Yet, the Bush Administration has done 

little to protect our Nation’s freight rail and public transportation 

system and its millions of passengers. The anniversary of this terrible tragedy again raises a serious question as to whether we are 

prepared in this Country for a similar attack. Sadly, the answer is 

no, no. The Federal Government has focused most of its attention 

in enhancing security in the airline industry and has largely ignored the needs of public transit agencies and railroads. Yet, 

worldwide, more terrorist attacks have occurred on transit and rail 

systems since 9/11 than on airlines. 

In 2006, we dedicated $4.7 billion to the airline industry for security while 6,000 public transit agencies and one national passenger 

railroad, Amtrak, had to share a mere $136 million total for security upgrades. Nothing was provided to the 532 freight railroads for 

security upgrades. 

Fortunately, for the traveling public, the legislation that I have 

introduced with Chairman Oberstar and Chairman DeFazio will 

address the security challenges facing our Nation’s transit and rail 

systems. Our bill requires comprehensive security plans, strengthened 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 funds for lifesaving improvements to the tunnels in New York, Boston and Washington, D.C. 

Most importantly, it helps make sure our communities, our first responders and our transit and rail workers are safe and secure, and 

it does all of this through a coordinated effort between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation, 

the agent that has the expertise to deal with transportation safety 

issues. 

We are way behind many other countries in protecting our transit and rail system, but with the leadership—let me repeat—the 

new leadership in the Congress, we have a plan that will protect 

millions of transit and rail passengers and the communities 

through which freight railroads operate from harm while keeping 

the trains running on time. 

Once again, I want to thank the Chairman for holding this joint 

hearing, and I yield back the balance of time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. With that, I would recognize Congressman Shuster 

from Pennsylvania, the Ranking Member on the Railroads Subcommittee. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

We do need to focus on rail and transit security, but I think it 

is important to also point out that the last six years, we have not 

had an attack, and we need to give great credit to our law enforcement and intelligence community for, I believe, that record. As we 

look at our transit system and rail system, it is an open system; 

highway system, open system. We are not going to be able to close 

it off, but we do need to focus and find ways to be sure that we 

are enhancing and improving that security. But the best way, as 

I said, is intelligence sharing, intelligence gathering and making 

sure that our law enforcement have the tools available to be able 

4

to go out and find, arrest and take down these organizations that 

want to do harm to American citizens and our system. 

The rail system in the United States is large, the largest in the 

world, 200,000 miles of track and over 220,000 employees. With the 

commuter rail system, we are carrying over a million passengers 

per day. As I said, this is an open system. We can’t close it, but 

we again have to find ways to improve our security system. 

The railroads in this Country, I think, have done a good job of 

starting off on their own. The Association of American Railroads 

created and funded its own security plan immediately after 9/11 

and conducted risk analysis of the entire industry including train 

operations, communications and cyber security and hazmat transportation. The AAR created a DOD-certified 24/7 operations center 

working at the secret level to monitor and evaluate intelligence. 

They also created a surface transportation information sharing 

and analysis center operating at a top secret level to handle infrastructure and cyber security threats. A railroad police officer sits 

on the FBI’s National Joint Terrorism Taskforce. Rail analysts 

with top security clearance sit at DHS offices also. As I said, I 

think they have done a good job of the private sector moving forward, making sure they are trying to protect this critical infrastructure. 

We in Congress have to join with them and do more, similar to 

what we have done in the aviation industry and make sure that 

we are a partner with industry so that commerce and our citizens 

are safe. 

Again, I want to thank Mr. DeFazio and Chairwoman Brown for 

holding this joint hearing and again welcome all of our panelists. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

We want to move ahead as quickly as possible with the witnesses. 

Ms. Matsui, do you have an opening statement, briefly? 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Chairman 

Brown for holding this very important joint hearing. 

Transit and rail security is very important in my district. On the 

outskirts of my district is a Roseville rail yard which is the largest 

switching point of goods west of the Mississippi. Any spills or terrorist attacks could cause significant damage to business as well as 

loss of lives. Everyday trains arrive in the Roseville rail yard from 

California’s busiest ports. Five percent of all cargo transported 

through Roseville has hazardous material and runs directly 

through my district. We really have a keen interest in securing this 

rail yard. 

Additionally, in downtown Sacramento, our transit system is 

making a significant contribution to our city’s downtown economic 

development. Part of the reason why our downtown is developing 

is because Sacramento has a growing and vibrant public transportation system. As many of us already know, transit costs a significant investment in our community and neighborhoods. We must 

protect these investments, and we must make sure that the men 

and women who drive our buses and work on our rail lines receive 

adequate emergency preparedness training. They are the eyes and 

ears of our communities. 

5

I am really looking forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, 

and I truly appreciate Chairman DeFazio and Chairman Brown for 

calling this very important hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Thank you for being succinct. 

Any others? 

We have Mr. Mica, the full Committee Ranking Member here, 

who always has some words of wisdom. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. I did want to come this morning because I think this is an important hearing, and I think it also is 

going to set the tone for what we do in Congress in a very important area. We are talking about increasing the amount of funds we 

are going to spend in this area pretty dramatically. So what we do 

is important that it is effective. 

First of all, I think transit systems and railroads are particularly 

vulnerable to attack because they have open access. We just heard 

our Ranking Member mention that we have an open society and we 

have areas where there are large concentrations of people that use 

a public transit system. In any open society, it is almost impossible 

to protect everyone for every instance and every potential threat. 

But the threat to transit and rail security systems is very real, although again it is almost impossible to protect us against every potential attack. 

However, there are some things that we can do to assist transportation providers respond effectively to attacks and help our first 

responders. The most effective way to prevent terrorism is not by 

what we are going to discuss here today, but it is, as we have 

found, to penetrate the organization, the finance and communications of terrorist organizations. Most of what Congress has done 

has been to curtail, impede or limit law enforcement’s and intelligence agencies’ ability to obtain that information I just talked 

about or penetrate these organizations, and in fact that is probably 

our most effective use of dollars, going after those organizations 

and stopping the attack. 

Thus far, I have not seen much evidence that security grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security are particularly effective. In fact, there have been some examples of serious 

mismanagement of some of the grants under DHS programs such 

as the Urban Area Security Initiative and the Homeland Security 

grant program. 

Let me just cite a few of those examples. One was $160,000 grant 

to Montgomery County, Maryland, to buy eight large screen plasma 

TVs. They probably should have waited. The price has gone down 

dramatically. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. A $3,000 grant to Converse, Texas, to buy a secure 

trailer to transport lawnmowers to the annual lawnmower drag 

race; a $100,000 grant to the Washington, D.C. Department of Public Works to pay for sanitation workers to attend a Dale Carnegie 

management and public speaking session. Now these are some 

egregious violations, and we cannot allow security grants that we 

create to go for frivolous activities like these. 

I believe that transit and rail security grants should be focused 

on activities that really can make a difference. First of all, better 

communications, systems that are interoperable—right now, we 

6

have inoperable systems, but we need interoperable systems with 

our emergency responders—increased monitoring of rail and transit 

stations and other facilities, and basic security training for front 

line transit and rail workers. 

With 170,000 employees in DHS with responsibility over some 20 

agencies, I don’t believe that DHS is the best place and doesn’t particularly have the best expertise or track record in grants management or in transit and rail policy operations to effectively manage, 

again, what we are talking about here today. If we are going to 

have transit and rail security grants, I would urge both sides of the 

aisle to consider having those grants managed by the Department 

of Transportation. 

The DHS transit and rail security program has averaged about $135 million a year for the past couple of years, and I have seen 

proposed legislation that authorized $1.5 billion a year for the 

same activities. It remains to be seen if this level of funding is justified. However, we need a risk-based estimate for transit and rail 

security needs that has been conducted in a disciplined manner 

and independently validated. Without it, we are flying blind because again we are an open society. 

Any terrorist, in fact, even a lame-brained terrorist could with 

little imagination take down our tunnels, our critical infrastructure, our subways, attack our transit systems, regardless of any 

grants or measures that Congress will adopt. Remember that. They 

can do that, no matter what you are going to adopt here today. 

We had a chance, I don’t know. You didn’t go on that one, did 

you, when we went to London a few months before the London attack and we saw what they put in place? They spent quite a bit 

of money, and they had one of the most sophisticated systems. Ms. 

Brown went. But all they could do—and they had the attack afterwards—all they could do when they had people who were determined to take down their transit system, was to obtain surveillance 

tapes. It did help them unravel the case. It is impossible to stop 

that type of action. 

If you look at London and Madrid, London had suicide bombers 

intent on taking them down. Anything that you provide in these 

grants will not do that. It might help you find them after the fact. 

In Madrid, you had backpacks and cell phones, again, almost impossible to eliminate backpacks and cell phones for all your people 

that access transit. 

So, again, we have to think how we are going to spend these dollars, that we spend them wisely. We put them in responsible hands 

and that they do the best in addressing potential risks. 

Sorry to take so much time, but I came this morning because this 

is a very important topic, and the money we spend and the programs we devise need to be very sound. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the Ranking Member a 

quick question, 30 seconds? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You know we are going to try and get done by 

11:00, and we have two panels, but if the gentlelady has an urgent 

need. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, just quickly, first of all, I want you to know 

that as far as the grants going to the Department of Transportation, without objection. 

7

Secondly, I was with you when we went to London, and I think 

it is very important. They were not able to stop the bombing, but 

one of the things is, as you said, they were able to identify within 

days who bombed the trains, and we don’t have that capacity as 

we sit here and speak. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for her comment. 

Again, we are trying to get in two panels by 11:00. 

I urge members to submit opening statements for the record, but 

Ms. Napolitano wishes to be recognized. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. I, too, am 

very concerned about the level of security along the railroads since 

the Alameda Corridor East in Los Angeles, the whole quarter runs 

through my district. It has more than 150 trains through there a 

day, probably 15, 20,000 contains or upwards. A lot of them contain 

hazardous material, and there are two million people in that area 

that just live along that one corridor. I have no open space. Streets 

define cities, so I am extremely populated. When there are 54 rail 

crossings, which makes it an even worse scenario for some kind of 

derailment, I still contend that the railroads should work with us, 

with the Nation to ensure the safety and security. 

I know there is an issue with the hazmat placarding. We need 

to address that. We need to address the security of the employees 

and the people that we traverse through. Of course, we have got 

to ensure that we have a good training program for your employees 

who will then deliver the goods intact. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chair. That is my two bits. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have just been told there is no one else on our 

side that wishes to make an opening statement, is that correct? 

All right, thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. [Presiding] Thank you. 

Are there any other opening statements on our side? 

Okay, we will proceed with the first panel. 

Mr. Norman Rabkin with Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Managing Director, Washington, 

D.C., welcome. 

Mr. William Millar, American Public Transit Association, President, welcome. 

Mr. Peter Pantuso, American Bus Association, we really haven’t 

done anything in that area, and Mr. Fred Weiderhold, Amtrak Inspector General and Michael Siano, the Amalgamated Transit 

Union International Executive Vice President, welcome to the Committee, and you can straighten out your names as you go forward. 

8

TESTIMONY OF NORMAN J. RABKIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; PETER 

PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, 

AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; FRED WEIDERHOLD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, AMTRAK; MICHAEL SIANO, INTERNATIONAL 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT 

UNION. 

Mr. RABKIN. Thank you, Ms. Brown. I am Norm Rabkin with the 

GAO, the Government Accountability Office. 

Ms. Brown, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Mica, members of the 

Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this 

discussion on the security of the Nation’s transportation systems. 

In September, 2005, we reported on the efforts to secure the Nation’s passage of rails systems. We have recently initiated work on 

the security of commercial vehicles and freight rail and will soon 

initiate a review of highway infrastructure and will follow up on 

our report on the passenger rail system. 

The decisions on how to secure surface transportation systems, 

what should be done, where it should be done, who should do it, 

how much should it cost, who should maintain it, all need to be 

made in the context of the fact that the Country cannot sustain the 

current fiscal policy. The Comptroller General has been telling the 

Congress and the Country that among the solutions to this impending crisis is strengthening the Federal budget and legislative processes and controls. Today, as we talk about investing hundreds of 

millions of additional Federal dollars, perhaps even billions of dollars, in needed security for surface transportation systems, we need 

to keep in mind that resources are limited and that there are many 

other worthy claims on each dollar. In this light, it is very important that Congress, the Administration and the other stakeholders 

in this process be in agreement with the national strategy for securing the passenger rail system as well as the rest of the transportation sector. 

The problem, of course, is that there is no national strategy to 

agree to. DHS has not fully met the expectations of Congress and 

the President. DHS has not yet issued its transportation sector-specific plan and supporting plans which are to identify their TSA 

strategy for securing all transportation modes including passenger 

rail. These plans are important for establishing and clearly communicating the roles and responsibilities of all transportation stakeholders. They also provide a basis for DHS to allocate limited resources among competing demands. 

Regarding risk assessments, both DHS and DOT have completed 

numerous risk assessments of passenger rail systems around the 

Country and have provided technical assistance and training to rail 

operators to help them assess the risks that they face. DHS has 

also begun to develop an overall framework to help agencies in the 

private sector develop a consistent approach for analyzing and comparing risks to transportation and other sectors. However, although 

progress has been made, these risk assessment efforts have not yet 

been completed or fully coordinated. Until they are, it will be difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34784 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
9

ficult to compare risks within the rail sector and across the different sectors and to allocate resources accordingly. 

Regarding Federal actions after the 9/11 attacks, the Transportation Department took a number of efforts to strengthen the security of rail systems including providing security training and technical assistance to rail operators. DHS has issued security directives, piloted explosive detection technology for use in the rail system and recently issued a proposed rule addressing passenger 

freight rail security. DHS has also provided hundreds of millions 

of dollars to help enhance rail security through several grant programs, and its fiscal year 2008 request for the transit security 

grant program is $175 million. 

Although not all of these activities have been well coordinated or 

well received, they have enabled system operators to implement 

programs to better protect their systems and their passengers 

against terrorist attacks and to be better prepared to recover from 

any attacks that occur. 

Finally, DHS and DOT have signed a memorandum of understanding, and their relevant components have agreed to specific annexes that delineate roles and responsibilities regarding passenger 

and freight rail security. We have not yet examined how DHS and 

DOT are implementing these agreements but plan to do so this 

year. 

In summary, we are encouraged by the increased Federal focus 

on the security of surface transportation modes. A clear strategy, 

strong Federal coordination and continued leadership from the 

Congress, DHS and DOT will be needed to help ensure that actions 

and investments are designed to enhance security and are appropriately focused and prioritized. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my opening statement. I 

will be prepared to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLAR. Chairwoman Brown, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica, Mr. 

Duncan, Mr. Shuster and all the members of the Committee, thank 

you so much for inviting us to be with you today. 

I am William Millar. I am the President of the American Public 

Transportation Association and, on behalf of our 1,500 members, 

we are pleased to be testified on the Rail and Public Transportation 

Act of 2007, H.R. 1269. We appreciate that you have made the security of the tens of millions of Americans who use public transit 

every day and the hundreds and thousands of workers who work 

in our industry, make their security a high priority, and we look 

forward to working with you as you move to complete this bill. 

As Mr. Duncan said, this Committee has acted on several other 

occasions in these areas. Unfortunately, the rest of the Congress 

has not seen fit to go forward. I hope this is our time when the 

train pulls out of the station and makes it successfully to its destination. 

Now today is a weekday and, as a weekday, 34 million times, 

Americans will board public transportation vehicles. That compares 

with less than two million times that they will board the Nation’s 

airlines. So you can see it is an important part of our transportation network and one that is heavily used. 

10

Unfortunately, security has been a priority with our industry for 

many years, long before that fateful day in September of 2001 because, as our friends from the GAO have reported on several occasions, public transit is among the most frequent target of terrorist 

activity around the world. We have stepped up our activities since 

September 11th, and transit systems have spent more than $2.5 

billion out of their own budgets with only a pittance of Federal assistance to encourage the development of better security. We can 

do more, we should do more, and we urge the Congress to increase 

Federal investment in transit security. 

Our industry has identified some 6 billion worth of needs that 

ought to be done to improve security. Some of these are very complex. Some of them are very simple: capital investments such as 

interoperable radio systems and communications systems, more security cameras, automatic vehicle locator systems and simple 

things like better fencing and protection at the facilities where our 

employees work. We also need investment in so-called soft costs 

such as better law enforcement, overtime costs, extra security, 

more extensive training of workers, to just name a few of these. 

We also ask that the Congress provide funds to sustain an increase of the very successful Transit Security Standards program 

that our organization has developed in cooperation with DHS and 

DOT. We also urge the Congress to provide a funding mechanism 

for the Public Transit Information Analysis Center, the so-called 

ISAC, which allows effective communication of important intelligence information with public transit systems across the Country, 

also, interestingly enough, allows reverse communication back to 

DHS so that they can be aware of what is going on in the field. 

These are common sense improvements that should be made and 

should be funded by the Federal Government as part of the larger 

war on terrorism. 

Now let me turn to the specifics of the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act. We strongly support the proposed $3.36 billion 

that would be invested over a three year period under this bill. It 

would go a long way in plugging some of the holes that I have outlined here. We appreciate that the bill is designed to cover both 

some of the operational costs and capital costs that I have referred 

to. 

We do want to encourage the Congress to allow flexibility. Needs 

vary substantially, different cities, different transit agencies. Large 

rail systems may have different needs than large bus systems. 

Both have different needs than commuter rail systems have. We 

need some level of flexibility in how they are implemented. 

We strongly support the notion of coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation as envisioned in this bill. We are very pleased that the bill 

and, from what I can take, the members’ opening statements, that 

there is strong support to make sure that the grant-making mechanisms of the Federal Transit Administration are used to make sure 

that whatever money the Congress makes available is distributed 

quickly, fairly and that the appropriate checks and balances, the 

audit and all those things that are required are in place and should 

be used, and we do appreciate this Committee’s recognition of that. 

11

While there are many things to like in this bill, it won’t surprise 

you that there are a couple of things that we have some concerns 

about. The bill, as we understand was originally drafted, requires 

a local match. We can see no possible justification for a local match 

in a national security issue. We do wonder what 500 additional rail 

inspectors, many of whom do not understand the transit operating 

environment, will do. We worry about the negative impact of potential civil and criminal penalties on public employees. 

We want to be sure that the grant funds are delivered quickly 

and properly and spent right. We think by running it through the 

Department of Transportation, using their existing mechanisms, is 

adequate protection. 

I see my light is blinking, and I could go on and on. So let me 

just summarize by saying thank you very much. We appreciate the 

strong position you have taken and look forward to working with 

you in the enactment and administration of this bill. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Pantuso? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Yes, thank you, my thanks to the Committee. 

My name is Pete Pantuso. I am the CEO of the American Bus 

Association. We appreciate your scheduling this hearing. We also 

appreciate your consideration of H.R. 1269, the Rail and Public 

Transportation Security Act of 2007. 

The American Bus Association and our members take very seriously the security of our passengers, our equipment, our facilities 

and our personnel, and we will greatly be aided in the efforts to 

protect our industry and our 650 million passengers with further 

security funding. 

In the time I have today, I would like to accomplish a couple of 

things: number one, to tell you about the ABA membership, who 

we are, what we do and what our interests are in transportation 

and in security; second, detail the efforts that ABA and its members have undertaken in security since 9/11; and third, give you 

ABA’s view of H.R. 1269 and its provisions. 

The American Bus Association is the primary trade association 

representing the private over the road bus industry as well as 

thousands of tourism attractions and icons in places like Washington, D.C., New York City, Oklahoma City and every city 

throughout the Country. As I mentioned, the private bus industry 

transports approximately 650 million passengers every year, a total 

that compares favorably with the number of passengers carried by 

the Nation’s airlines. Moreover, ABA members link some 4,000 

communities across the Country. 

The difference between the private bus industry and airlines is 

that bus operators are in every community. They are small mom 

and pop businesses. They operate with little or no Federal, state 

or local subsidy. As the Federal Government continues to fund, and 

well deservedly, the airlines from terrorist attacks, funds should 

also be provided to the private bus industry who similarly move 

hundreds of millions of passengers and whose funding mechanisms 

have been lacking from this Congress. Indeed, the private bus industry’s minimal security funding has been limited to modest 

amounts through the appropriations process, typically averaging 

less than $10 million per year since 9/11 and typically overseen by 

12

the Department of Homeland Security. For fiscal year 2007, for example, the Department of Homeland Security has divided the funding mechanism into two tiers, the larger share of resources only 

available for larger companies. In fact, only four companies have 

received approximately 80 percent of the limited amount of funding 

in current fiscal year 2007. 

ABA’s operators have made effective use of past funds, limited 

though they were, and operators priorities are certainly training 

and threat assessment, threat recognition, crisis management. 

They have also identified that in the future, they need equipment. 

They need emergency phones, GPS devices and other communications systems that will link them to first responders. They need 

driver shields. They need cameras in bus facilities and cameras on 

board buses and in staging areas—all equipment necessary to protect the passengers that they move. That is why the funds provided 

by the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act are so necessary. When the average ABA member has five to eight motor 

coaches, the industry lacks the wherewithal to support even modest 

security enhancements without Federal funding. 

ABA did help develop a training program for bus industry personnel in 2003 and 2007 with the help of DHS funding. That program trained personnel in threat assessment, threat recognition, 

crisis management. It trained security and safety directors of bus 

companies and had them go back and train other employees. The 

ABA distributed security training materials, instructional CDs, 

provided information on a security web site, all of which was available to assist the private industry. We trained hundreds of individuals. We trained 700 companies out of a total of 3,500 companies. 

But despite those promising results, that program has been halted 

because of a lack of DHS funding for the future. 

With all I have said, it should be clear that the American Bus 

Association and its members support H.R. 1269. The bill authorizes 

$87 million over 4 years for bus security grants for the private industry. While the increase in bus security funds is certainly appreciated, equally important is Section 9 of the bill which details the 

use of the funding for construction, for modifying terminals, for 

protecting drivers, for installing cameras and video surveillance 

systems, for establishing and improving emergency communications and for passenger screening where appropriate. Subsection C 

allows private operators who are eligible for grants to receive those 

grants from the department with consultation from the Department of Transportation, and we think that is critically important. 

There are other provisions of the bill that we are very, very 

happy with and, as Mr. Millar pointed out, there are some things 

that we would like to see changed. 

But, in conclusion, we want to offer our thanks for your considering this bill and putting this bill together. We hope that it will 

receive favorable consideration from the full House at the earliest 

opportunity, and the ABA looks forward to working with both Committees and the Chairmen and Ranking Members from both Committees to make sure that security for the private over the road bus 

industry is top of mind. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

13

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of 

the Committee. 

The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act, H.R. 1269, is 

a significant piece of legislation, probably the most important legislation affecting rail and transit security since 9/11. I thank you, 

just as Mr. Millar and others on this panel have thanked you, for 

listening to the passenger rail community and for working with the 

DHS committee in moving this legislation forward. I know that 

there were some missed opportunities in the Congress, and I thank 

you for those efforts as well. 

I want to be the first witness who tells you that you cannot act 

quickly enough. Madrid, London, Mumbai are wakeup calls. In 

using that metaphor, I think some people have just pushed the 

snooze alarm. We need to wake up. We do not have the time that 

we think we have to address these serious problems. 

I cannot and will not tell you that the passenger rail sector is 

fully prepared. It is not. Certainly, in locations like New York City, 

very much to the credit of Commissioner Ray Kelly and others, we 

have made inroads. We have made real progress, and progress has 

been made in substantive pockets in other areas of transit and the 

freight side, but I cannot say the same is true for all of the critical 

properties used by Amtrak. We do not have enough K-9 units at 

our stations, we do not have police and security on our trains, and 

we have not put into place many of the physical countermeasures 

that our vulnerability assessments have concluded are needed. 

Amtrak plans to do more. This does not mean that we do not 

know what to do. 

I think to Mr. Duncan’s and Mr. Mica’s comments, if after five 

years, gentlemen, we don’t know what to do and we are not smart 

about how we invest that money, then shame on us. I think we can 

learn a lot from what was done correctly and what was done incorrectly on the aviation side. You cannot pick up a lot of what has 

been done in aviation and move it over to our open system, but 

there are lessons learned there, and I think we can be very smart 

about the money that would be authorized for rail and transit security. 

I would also urge you to find a way to exact the best kind of cooperation between DHS and DOT to get the real synergisms. I 

know that is not an easy task. The simple fact is that passenger 

rail and transit have familiarity with the grand processes and regulatory and safety oversight roles played by DOT. There is a comfort level there. 

The sector’s experiences with DHS, quite frankly, are mixed partly because of the newness of the Department, the reorganizations 

of the Department. I don’t know what iteration we are on right 

now, but when you meet with a lot of DHS folks, they don’t have 

business cards that have their current title and organization. This 

does mean that they are not good people. This means they are trying to hang in and do a difficult job under difficult circumstances. 

Also, TSA traditionally has been aviation-centric. In the early 

days after Madrid when I went over and met with DHS and TSA 

representatives to hammer together the security directives, I met 

with people from the aviation sector and from the Coast Guard. 

14

There was no one present from the rail business and, at that time, 

they did not know our business well. 

With respect to the specific provisions of the bill, I want to highlight just a couple of points from my written testimony. First, in 

Section 4 with respect to the risk tiers, again to the members’ comments, you cannot cover all the bases; you should not try to cover 

all the bases. You need to assign those risk tiers that are out there. 

The language you have in the bill right now refers to providers, 

and I would recommend to you strongly that you also look to critical assets or systems. 

You look at a station like Washington, Union Station over here, 

which is probably in everybody’s target folder, high iconic value in 

the shadow of the Capitol. Yet, we have a station that if you just 

assign vulnerability, if you just require vulnerability assessments 

and risks on a provider basis, you have got Virginia Railway Express, you have got the MARC trains, you have got Amtrak, you 

have got WMATA that would be coming in—of which, what is their 

status? How would they be prioritized? It would be far better to 

prioritize that station, that locale as an intermodal point that 

needs to be prioritized. 

The other thing I would recommend is that you ought to mandate linkage between vulnerability and security plans between and 

among providers. Amtrak shares property with 23 different transit 

organizations across the Country, and yet in none of those plans 

are the security plans and vulnerability assessments linked together. That is an oversight, and that needs to be fixed. 

With respect to Section 7 of the bill, the rail security assistance, most of you know that Amtrak has received $22 million from DHS 

over the last three years. I think this bill goes a long way in allowing Amtrak the opportunity to have access to a far greater amount 

of funds, and I want to give you my assurances from an IG perspective that we will do everything we can to protect those funds. 

Section 10, fire and life safety, most of you know that we have 

a large fire and life safety project underway in New York City. If 

you have not been up here to see it, I would invite you to come see 

it because it will show you what we can do with those monies. It 

is extremely important to protect those tunnels. 

I see my time is up. 

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and 

I am ready for your questions. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. We do have questions for you. 

Mr. Siano, welcome. 

Mr. SIANO. Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Brown and Ranking 

Members Duncan and Shuster and members of the Committee, on 

behalf of more than 180,000 members of the Amalgamated Transit 

Union, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

today. I also want to applaud this Committee’s continuing focus on 

this important and urgent issue. 

The issue of transportation security is one that our members are 

confronted with on a daily basis. As vehicle operators and mechanics, our members are responsible for protection, safety and security 

of not only themselves but also their passengers. This is an awesome responsibility and one our members are ready to live up to 

so long as they are provided with the tools and training necessary 

15

to equip them to prevent or, if necessary, respond to terrorist or 

other emergency incidents. 

Faced with the reality of terrorist attacks against public transportation, the ATU has, for years, worked to raise awareness of our 

members and their employers to this danger and to advance real 

concerted solutions and initiatives to enhance the safety and security of the systems operated and maintained by ATU members. We 

strongly believe that the labor community must be a part in any 

effort to address the security threats facings our industry. 

For that reason, we have worked with our members, the transit 

and bus industries and officials in all levels of Government including many members of this Committee. The transit and over the 

road bus industries have taken admirable steps toward securing 

their operations, but due in a large part to funding constraints, 

they have not gone far enough. The reality is that these industries 

and the ATU cannot do this alone. The Federal Government must 

step up to the plate and provide the necessary funding, guidance 

and even mandates to provide the level of security that transit and 

over the road bus passengers and employees deserve. 

On the issue on funding, the ATU supports the figures presented 

by Mr. Millar in his written statement to the Committee. In addition, we join our partners at APTA in urging the Committee to reconsider the issues of matching funds for transit or over the road 

bus security grants. 

I would like to focus my comments today on another aspect of security which my members consider to be the most important thing 

that we can do to enhance the security of our public transportation 

system, front line employee training. While we should not abandon 

research and development, the new technologies we need to recognize that have been proven to be the most cost effective security 

measures is employee training. Each and very front line transit 

employee, including rail and bus operators, customer service personnel and maintenance employees, must receive security and 

emergency preparedness and response training. Security experts, 

Government officials and transit and over the road bus industry officials have all agreed that training is the most essential element 

on an effective security regime. 

In fact, just last week, the TSA Office of Grants and Training 

issued a bulletin which highlighted the importance of annual front 

line employee training and announced that the decision of the 

Agency to elevated priority to applications for grants for security 

training. We are pleased that the Agency has recognized the importance of training. Experience tells us that without the adequate 

funding and mandates, the necessary training will not be provided. 

The National Transit Institute which is funded by the Federal 

Transportation Administration has developed numerous mode and 

employee-specific training programs that have been widely approved and tested by union, industry and Government officials. Unfortunately, these programs, which are available free of charge to 

any U.S. transit agency, have only been provided to less than a 

quarter of our Nation’s transit employees. Unfortunately, transit 

systems continue to resist calls for training because of the operating costs to pay employees and keep the buses and trains running during training sessions. It is time for the Federal GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34784 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
16

ment to step in and provide funding for the operating costs associated with training and to further require all transit systems to 

train all front line employees. 

I want to applaud the members and leaders of this Committee 

for recognizing the need for Federal Government action in this 

realm. The recent introduction of the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 as well as legislation passed by this 

Committee in the previous session will go a long way towards addressing the needs of our Nation’s transit systems and their employees. Not only will this legislation provide significant funding 

resources directly to transit agencies and over the road bus companies for crucial capital enhancements, but it also recognizes the 

need for training by requiring that all front line employees receive 

the necessary training. 

The bill will further require consultation with employees and 

representatives in the development and implementation of security 

priorities and measures. The ATU is very supportive of these provisions. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on behalf 

of the ATU. I cannot stress enough how important it is to include 

the input of transportation labor in this discussion. It is our members who are on the front line of these battles and who know best 

what dangers they face every day on the job. I appreciate your recognition of this fact and look forward to working with you to address the important issues raised here today, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you and thank all of the panelists. 

Now we will go to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Oberstar, 

for his opening remarks or comments or begin the questioning. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you and Mr. 

DeFazio for laying the groundwork for this hearing and working together cooperatively and for the Ranking Members as well participating in what is a very critical subject matter for us, transit security and rail security. 

I have a statement which I will submit for the record. 

Mr. Siano, you really touched a sensitive chord. Your members 

are front line. We need your thoughts and suggestions as you speak 

for those who are the first ones to be struck when terrorism hits 

us wherever, in the Heartland, in the air, on the ground, on the 

waterways. 

In fact, just last week as I was participating in an Amtrak conference in Philadelphia and talking with the engineer on the Acela, 

discussing security issues, what do you see as a locomotive engineer, things that are a concern to you. I got an earful from one of 

your members or one of your brothers in Transportation. One of 

those concerns was fencing. Mr. Millar and other members, yes, we 

do need to put fencing up. It is an obvious deterrent. But that, in 

and of itself, is insufficient. 

I don’t want to go into it, but we looked at fencing on port security, for example, and putting miles and miles of fencing around 

the Nation’s ports and how quickly they can be penetrated. It is an 

obvious deterrent, sure. 

In Northern Minnesota, in my district at airports, there are 

fences put up, several miles of fences around those rural airports, 

17

and they keep out the deer and the timber wolves, a really good 

job with that, but I think a determined terrorist could get through 

those things very quickly. 

So what supplementary, what overriding types of security do 

your members need? Your transit agencies are on the front line. 

Siano’s members are running the buses and the transit vehicles, 

and they see it first hand. What additional do you need? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

your comments and understanding very much. 

We completely agree it is a whole series of things that need to 

be done. Certainly, it starts with the employees and the management and having a good plan and educating all at the authority as 

well as the law enforcement and the first responders in the area 

as to what that plan is and what is needed. 

Second, it is physical things. Sometimes it is simple, like fencing, 

but it is not just fencing. It is then making sure there are proper 

cameras and things that can watch that perimeter. It is making 

sure that our vehicles can be tracked and located. We now have 

very sophisticated technology available to us, but many transit systems can’t afford it, automated vehicle locations, things of that sort. 

For our larger members who operate extremely sophisticated facilities such as extensive systems of tunnels, it is making sure 

about what is called intrusion detection systems that are up to 

date. It is making sure that the chemical and biological detection 

systems are developed for our industry and deployed as appropriate 

in the number of places that are there. 

It also about working with our customers. Along with our employees, they are the people who are going to see what is going to 

happen first. So making sure that we have proper outreach to our 

customers, that they know what to do if they see something out of 

place, on and on. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am going to interrupt you there. That is an excellent catalogue, if you will—training, surveillance, tracking of 

transit vehicles, intrusion detection systems and passenger awareness, if you will. 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. May I ask the GAO representative, Mr. Rabkin, 

your reaction to that, just very briefly, very quickly, your response 

to those, to that catalogue, if you will? 

Mr. RABKIN. I think that an integrated approach to rail and transit safety is certainly called for. I think it all starts with coordination and the Federal Government taking the leadership. I think 

Congress has already spoken on that, and the President, the Administration also. The DHS has the leadership. They ought to come 

out with their strategies of how the various sectors ought to work 

together, what are the principles of security, and then industry and 

the Federal Government can take it from there. 

I think there has got to be some discussion of balance and, as 

I said earlier, who is going to pay what for what kind of investments, both capital and operating. Once those decisions are made, 

I think that applying the security needs at the local level on a riskbased approach can be done. It can be done a lot more easily. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Pantuso, do you think the DOT and DHS are 

applying best industry practices to security as to your members? 

18

Mr. PANTUSO. In the case of our members, sir, no, absolutely not. 

Each one of our members are, for the most part, very small business people. They are all very different in terms of the types of 

services that they offer. There is very little opportunity for them 

outside of some limited DHS funds and what we have done to access training, to access threat awareness, to put together a plan, 

to understand what the assessment needs to be . The fact that we 

have only trained a few thousand people out of 150,000 employees 

is a problem in our industry. 

The biggest challenge I think that we have, that I think DHS 

and DOT haven’t been able to overcome so far is coordination between the two organizations and with other modes. I have testified 

before your Committee, Mr. Oberstar. For example, FTA in working with Mr. Millar’s members have a tremendous amount of information and resources and training materials. Since we are very 

similar systems, we are open door bus systems, if some of that 

could even be shared with those that we work with DHS, that 

would be a big step in the right direction. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Amtrak could certainly use metal detectors at 

check points and entry points, not as extensive as for aviation but 

certainly they could use some of the aviation technology, Mr. 

Weiderhold. 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. I think there is some opportunity. We, obviously, have had a couple of tests of those types of equipment on our 

properties and found for the most part that they really can’t handle 

all of the volumetric flow that we have going into the stations at 

certain times, but I would say during periods of heightened threat 

alert or if there has been an attack that is close to home, then yes, 

something must be done around screening, absolutely. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And intrusion detection systems as well? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Well, I can tell you tunnels have come up several times this morning, and I share the concern in and around 

tunnels, especially tunnels underwater. As an IG, I go out and I 

try to look for best practices because a lot of the way we evaluate 

how well the company is performing is we want to look at what the 

best practice is and do a gap analysis around that best practice. I 

can tell you that there is no standard for best practices for tunnels. 

As an engineer, I can tell you that a lot of these tunnels that 

were built into the 19th Century were what we call built to last. 

They were built with granite. You go to the Baltimore Potomac 

tunnel, the First Street tunnel, trust me, those things are very substantial. If you go to the underwater tunnels in New York in the 

Hudson and East Rivers, those are cut and fill tunnels. They have 

greater vulnerabilities. We are very concerned about that, and we 

are trying to do things to mitigate that exposure, but we need intrusion detection. 

You also need, if you have someone coming in, you need to take 

that person down, and we are looking at means and methods to do 

that too. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

My last question, Mr. Millar and I think other members as well, 

one of the issues we are going to face as we move into the legislation, as we move the legislation forward between our Committee 

and the Homeland Security Committee, is grant administration. 

19

Your experience has been that DOT has computer software to track 

and monitor the flow of dollars and to prioritize needs. On the 

other hand, Homeland Security has had four separate offices that 

they shifted in the course. That is really extraordinary in such a 

short lifetime of this agency, to have changed the servicing of transit agencies with these security grants. 

Your very firm recommendation, would that be concurred by others, that the grant administration be run through the Department 

of Transportation? 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir, that is. I mean the policy should be set by 

the Congress. If the judgment of the Congress is to centralize it at 

DHS, that is fine, but let us use the other resources of the Government. The Federal Transit Administration has been giving out 

grants for 40 years. They have a well developed system. They have 

a system of checks and balances. They have, after the grant has 

been made, the ability for audit systems, things of that sort. Why 

not make use of what works? 

DHS, as you said, four different arrangements in five different 

years, there are still grants from 2004 that haven’t yet been fully 

utilized because the rules keep changing, a very difficult, complicated process. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Pantuso, do you have a comment to make? 

Mr. PANTUSO. No. We would agree very much with what Mr. 

Millar said. Obviously, the system isn’t working right now. To the 

extent that moving it somewhere else or at least better coordination between the two departments will help tremendously in our 

own members’ efforts. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Weiderhold, do you have any comments? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. In my oral testimony, Mr. Oberstar, I pointed 

out that there is a lot of familiarity with passenger rail and transit 

with DOT and some comfort level that exists on that plane. It is 

a tough call because clearly DHS is here and DHS has certainly, 

I would call it, security policy drivers in this organization. But with 

a gun to my head, this is like asking a child of divorced parents, 

who do you like more, mommy or daddy; we have to live with both 

of them. It is a tough question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. 

My time is well beyond the point, and I am grateful, Madam 

Chair, for this time, and thank you very much, Mr. Shuster and 

Mr. Duncan also for your corresponding participation in these 

areas and your work in the past Congress on these subject matters. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Since this is a joint hearing, I want to go first to 

Mr. Shuster for questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and thank you Chairwoman Brown. Because we have a time schedule, I am just going 

to ask one question, but I would like to submit several other questions to the panelists to get their responses. 

Mr. Millar, your frustration came through, and you started to 

talk about and didn’t have time. My question is concerning the 

grant programs at DHS, can you elaborate on some of the frustrations you have had with dealing with DHS in getting these grants? 

20

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, well, first there is knowing what their policy 

is and they change it every year, so it starts at that very basic 

level. 

Second, it is the structure that they use. Once the Congress sets 

some money for this purpose, then DHS puts its spin on it. Then 

it sends direction to each of the 50 States to the security offices 

there. Then from there, it goes down to a regional level. Then our 

transit systems have to participate in a competition at the regional 

level. Then it goes back up the chain. If there is something that 

gets back up that they don’t like, it goes back down the chain. Six 

months goes by. Twelve months goes by. Eighteen months goes by, 

the money that you thought was being invested in security to improve things for the American public doesn’t happen. So it is a very 

frustrating thing for our members. 

I have a quote. I did a little survey work, knowing I was coming 

here. I had my staff call our members. Let me just read you a couple quotes from a couple of transit systems this week: For the sake 

of five to six million dollars, we go through an incredible bureaucratic process that is unlike any other program, that from one of 

our major systems that has high quality staff people. They know 

what they are doing, and this is their assessment of what it is. I 

could go on and on and on with quotes from many other people. 

It is not a good system, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that through TSA or DHS. 

Mr. MILLAR. This comes through DHS. It is the Office of Grants 

and Training, I believe is what it is called this week. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. Before I ask my first question, let me just say that 

I have asked my Jacksonville Transit Authority Director, Michael 

Blaylock, to join us today, and he is here. Welcome, Mike. 

Mr. Weiderhold, Amtrak? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. You can just say Amtrak. That is fine. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. Okay, in a conversation the other day in the hearing, you mentioned that DHS and DOT have done little to help 

Amtrak improve security. You stated that Amtrak is not even on 

the DHS radar screen. What has been done and what are some of 

your recommendations? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Well, I think I may overspoken a little bit 

there. Clearly, we are on the DHS radar screen, and we talk to 

DHS. In fact, our new Chief Risk Officer is a former high ranking 

DHS infrastructure protection person. We are certainly glad to 

have him on staff. 

I testified earlier that Amtrak has only received $22 million over 

the last 3 years, and Amtrak also committed a lot of its own monies to doing things around safety and security, but I think a lot 

more could be done. I think we are getting smarter about how we 

need to spend the money that is out there. We would like to see 

kind of a firmer, stronger handshake between DHS and DOT and 

be a party to that handshake. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay, the next question is very important. The AAR 

have opposed limiting freight railroad liability for accidents involving hazardous material. I understand that under current law, AmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34784 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
21

trak is liable for all train accidents even if the accidents were due 

to the freight railroads’ negligence. Not counting grade crossing accidents, would you say that most accidents involving Amtrak are 

the fault of the freight railroads and, if so, what impact has that 

had on Amtrak? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. I am not an expert in this area, but I have 

been with the company for 30 years, so I think I am qualified to 

answer the question. Excluding the rail grade crossings, I would 

say that absolutely what we call the rail equipment accidents that 

involve our trains are generally the fault of wide gauge-narrow 

gauge doing things associated with the track. 

Ms. BROWN. In your opinion, how much progress has the U.S. 

made on rail and transit security since the Madrid bombing? I 

went on that trip to London, and it seems as if in London, the station is secure as opposed to when you go in the station. 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. The short answer is not nearly enough has 

been done. I can tell you the standard I use when I go to various 

properties that are out there. I use New York as my gold standard. 

New York has what we call in the vernacular, a game face. They 

get it. They feel the threat. They have made a commitment to it. 

The city has. The State has. The carriers have. So that is my 

standard. 

I will go to look at Washington or Los Angeles or Seattle or any 

other major urban station that we have, and I wish they were all 

as ready as New York is. 

Ms. BROWN. GAO, you noted a conflict between FRA and TSA 

regulations. It seems to me that DOT and DHS needs to coordinate 

better and that the future legislation should recognize the need for 

the agencies to coordinate on these initiatives. Can you expand on 

that? 

Mr. RABKIN. They have signed a memo of understanding between 

the two departments and then there have been two annexes signed 

between FTA and DHS and between FRA and DHS. The question 

is whether they are actually carrying out what they have agreed 

to and whether what they have agreed to goes far enough to accomplish the mission that Congress expects of all those agencies. Those 

are questions that we plan to be asking this year as we do our 

work on both freight rail and passenger rail, and we look to informing the Subcommittees of our results in the next year or two. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Siano, can you explain what type of security 

training your workers are now getting and what improvements do 

you think need to be made? 

Mr. SIANO. Well, I guess that is pretty simple. The training that 

we are getting now is practically nil, means nothing, that I am 

aware of on any type of level. I mean we might be getting some 

very small amount of training about identifying people as they 

board on the buses or into any property that we have, but the security guards are not there for property entrance. There is very little 

of anything that is locked up. 

They do, my understanding is throughout the industry, they do 

lock up at a certain time at night, all doors, and you have to go 

through probably one entrance and one exit at night for employees 

leaving and coming that time of night. But during the day, you 

have got to understand, bus garages, for the most part in the sumVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34784 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
22

mer time, in warm weather, all the doors and bay doors are open 

to get somewhat of cross breeze. So that is an open invitation to 

anybody to walk through. 

We have other situations where our bus cleaners because at 

night the bus has to be cleaned inside and out, and we have a tremendous amount of people sleeping in buses. They have no place 

to go. So what they do is they wander into a bus garage, and they 

fall asleep. They intend to fall asleep. You know we got to roust 

them up, and sometimes it is not a pretty situation because some 

of these people, who are very ill, protect themselves with any weapon that they have on them, mostly knives. And so, we are getting 

harassed. 

The notion that these garages throughout the Country are completely secured, let alone during the day, at night, they are not 

even secured. So we have a tremendous amount of break-ins. We 

have a tremendous amount of entry by strangers, and obviously we 

don’t know what for. They could be terrorists. We don’t know. We 

haven’t been hit rather big on that situation, but we do have it on 

occasions. 

It is a tremendous burden on us to be careful of people wandering on properties. We are charged with that responsibility, and 

it is not part of our job description, and it should not be. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thought Mr. Millar made a good point when he talked about the 

fact that we have so many billions more that are taking rail, bus 

and public transit than on the airplanes. I think the staff tells me 

9.6 billion passengers a year on public transit, and that compares 

to about 700 million on the airplanes. Really, we are going ridiculously overboard. I was on the Aviation Security Conference Committee, but we are going ridiculously overboard at the airports, 

screening passengers, confiscating shaving cream and shampoo and 

an occasional pocketknife. 

But I do recognize that more needs to be done on this particular 

type of security we are dealing with here today. I also realize that 

every member is going to say that we need to do more and more 

and more in regard to security so they won’t get in trouble if something bad happens, but at some point, we need to recognize that 

you are several thousand times more likely to be killed in a car 

wreck or even many, many times more likely to be struck by lightening than you are to be killed by a terrorist. 

I would like to read a quote that was testified or that was said 

at a Senate committee a few months ago by a witness. He said, 

‘‘We should not let an over-exaggerated threat of terrorism drive us 

crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend against every conceivable 

threat. We do have limits, and we do have choices to make. We 

don’t want to break the very systems we are trying to protect. We 

don’t want to destroy our way of life trying to save it. We don’t 

want to undercut our economy trying to protect our economy, and 

we don’t want to destroy our civil liberties and our freedoms in 

order to make ourselves safer.’’

That was a quote from Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. 

23

What I am saying is this, we just need to look very carefully, as 

the Wall Street Journal editorial said that I quoted in my opening 

statement. We need to look very carefully at any request for security. We don’t need to just automatically approve anything that has 

the word, security, attached to it. We have got to make sure we are 

getting some bang for our buck and that what we are approving 

is effective and especially cost-effective. 

Now, going from that, I have several questions. I am not going 

to have time to ask them all but maybe in a second round. 

Mr. Rabkin, you traveled, you and your people traveled apparently to several other countries, studying their security, their rail 

and bus security programs. What did you find in some of these 

other countries that was the most effective or impressive to you or 

your staff? 

Mr. RABKIN. First of all is the same frustration and limitations 

that we face in this Country: that you can’t protect everything and 

that they had to make hard choices about what they invested in. 

We found a lot of the same practices and principles that were 

talked about today in terms of public awareness, intrusion detection, closed circuit TVs, the redesign of stations and infrastructure, 

which of course is, when you talking about building new, then that 

makes sense. If you are talking about retrofitting, it becomes very 

costly. 

One of the things that they do that we don’t do here, there is a 

little more covert testing to ensure that the systems are working. 

They have a little more central focus on evolving technologies, and 

the governments there will do the testing and share the results of 

the testing of what technologies work well with the companies that 

need to use them. There are a couple of things like that that we 

have reported on. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Millar, you gave one quote a few minutes ago from one of 

your members. Do you have any specific examples of problems that 

some of your companies or your people have run into in applying 

for these grants through the Homeland Security Department? 

Secondly, you have testified there is a $6 billion need there. 

Would you tell us how did you arrive at that? How did you arrive 

at that figure or is there some independent group that analyzed 

that and came up with that figure? 

Mr. MILLAR. With regard to your first question, our members tell 

us that the problems start first with understanding what the policy 

is going to be for that particular year. 

The second problem we hear is that since it is passed through 

the States, you have varying degrees of interest. Certainly, in a 

State like New York, there tends to be a higher degree of interest 

than there might be in a State that has not had a terrorist attack 

in it. At that State level, there is very little understanding usually 

of what public transit is about and what needs to be done. 

There are arbitrary limits put on how the money can be spent. 

Congress didn’t necessarily put limits on it, but limits get put. So 

for example, paying certain kinds of operating costs, which as Mr. 

Siano said is important if we are going to pay to keep buses on the 

street while we are training employees. Transit is not like a product that you can put on the shelf and inventory. The bus that is 

24

to be there at 8:00 a.m. has to be there with a properly trained 

driver there, those kinds of things. 

Then this long process of getting an answer to a question, because you go through several different layers, we all know the old 

game of telephone where you speak in one person’s ear and then 

the next person and the next person, and you get a different story 

at the end. 

Sometimes, DHS on a couple of occasions hasn’t released the 

money that Congress gave it until the very last day of the year, so 

you miss many, many months, and the list goes on and on. We 

would be pleased to provide specific examples. With regard to the oft quoted number by me and others of $6 billion, that is a number that we developed based on a detailed survey 

that we did of our members in 2003, and it was talking with the 

members. By that point, they had two years of post-9/11 experience. We had learned some of these lessons from around the world 

that you just spoke of, and we had done assessments. The FTA, 

and that point, had done almost three dozen security assessments 

of transit systems. So we were able to piece together all that information. That is our best estimate. 

We have offered to the Department of Homeland Security who 

has frequently criticized our estimate, why don’t we work together. 

Why don’t we jointly develop a way of going out? Maybe the $6 billion number is right. Maybe it is $10 billion. Maybe it is less $6 

billion. Let us work together. To date, we are still waiting for them 

to take us up on that offer. 

I wish I could give you more detail, but that is the best number 

that anybody has that we have been able to find. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much. 

I have questions for the other members of the panel, but in fairness I am going to yield back at this point. I will ask later. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cummings? 

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

I just have one question, and this is to Mr. Rabkin. The President has stated in an executive order that Federal, State and local 

officials and the private sector must share responsibilities for surface transportation security. Tell me, what is the appropriate role 

for the Federal Government in setting standards that State and 

local officials and the private sector should meet and are the State 

and local officials truly prepared to be full partners in ensuring security on the transit and rail systems? 

Mr. RABKIN. Mr. Cummings, I don’t have an answer to the second part of your question about the preparedness. 

We plan to do more work in both the passenger and freight rail 

areas, and as part of those efforts, we will be interacting with the 

operators and with State and local government officials and learning more about it. I don’t know if anybody is ever prepared to do 

everything that is needed. I think part of the effort here is to get 

them to that level. I think I will just leave it at that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But wait a minute now. Do you see the Federal 

Government has having a role in setting standards? I didn’t hear 

your answer to that. 

Mr. RABKIN. Yes, sir. 

25

Mr. CUMMINGS. Maybe I missed it. 

Mr. RABKIN. No. You are right, I didn’t answer that first part. 

Yes, the Federal Government does have a role in setting standards, and it shouldn’t be a unilateral role. They need to work as 

both the Congress and the President have instructed DHS to 

work—with the other departments, with State and local governments, with operators, with other stakeholders to come up with 

standards that would be effective and are achievable. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. 

I am sorry. Did you want to say something? You look like you 

are ready to jump over the table. I want to make sure. 

Mr. MILLAR. Standards is a very important issue. We are a designated standards setting organization. We have offered to the Department of Homeland Security, let us work together to develop 

standards. Apropos Mr. Duncan’s question, we want to make sure 

that transit systems know the right things to do, that they don’t 

do too much of it or that they don’t do enough. We think a standards program which we have sought to have funded for several 

years now and which has not been funded. We have funded a piece 

of it with our own money because we think it is that important, 

but we think it is a partnership of the Government and the industry working together to set standards, and we would be very anxious to participate in such a partnership. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You have offered to do that? 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir, we have on many occasions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And you have been? 

Mr. MILLAR. Well, to be honest about it, at the lower levels, people see it, and they think it is a good idea, but when it goes up 

the chain in DHS, it has never been approved. It has never been 

funded. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It seems to me at some point we have got to 

move off the dime and make things happen. Chairman Brown, I 

have heard her talk about this, how the American people want us 

to solve their problems and not just be talking around each other. 

Consistent with that, I hope that we can begin to move in that direction so that 10 years from now, we are not sitting here, having 

this same discussion after many people suffered. 

I think, as I have said on many occasions, we have one life to 

live. This is no dress rehearsal. This is life. 

And so, I think we need to move on that, and I think it would 

be good if the parties would sit down and make an honest and 

straightforward effort to try to get there and that perhaps this 

Congress should set some timetables for you all to accomplish that 

because we don’t know how long we are going to be here. It is our 

job to make a difference. If we are not going to make a difference, 

we might as well not be here. 

Considering the fact that there are other members and we will 

want to move on to the second panel, I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Representative Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Duncan examined Mr. Rabkin along the same lines I was 

going to pursue, so I won’t repeat that. 

26

Mr. Weiderhold, I am told that Amtrak does not control the commercial and retail spaces at Union Station. Has this had a negative 

impact on Amtrak’s ability to control security, station security? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Let me just explain that just a little bit. I 

think there is a lot of confusion about who owns Union Station. 

Union Station proper, what we call from the gate area north up the 

railroad, is owned by Amtrak. The main hall, what most of you 

know as Union Station, is owned by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation which is DOT, Amtrak and the District of Columbia. They, in turn, contract with Union Station venturers that 

hire a property manager that leases the space to the retail operators. 

It is complex. It is a problem that we are trying to address because up until about six months ago, those players were not fully 

engaged in our security programs, and we have since engaged them 

in those programs. So to answer your questions, yes, we have engaged those folks, and yes, it has been difficult when you have 

properties that have multiple owners and multiple players. 

Mr. COBLE. But you see improvement? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Oh, absolutely. We have established at Union 

Station a concept that we call the Station Action Team that basically brings all the stakeholders in. We meet monthly. We go over 

security issues, safety issues. We have identified and uncovered 

some gaps that exist at Union Station, and I would love to talk to 

you about it more, but we are making some headway. 

Mr. COBLE. I would be glad to. 

Mr. Weiderhold, let me put another question to you. What security precautions does Amtrak take at the ticket counter? That is to 

say do ticket agents have access to a no-fly list, for example? Do 

they check ID and inspect baggage? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. ID is checked primarily to match a name to a 

credit card. It is done for financial reasons and not really for security reasons. In answer to your question with respect to the watch 

list, no, absolutely not. There are no Amtrak passengers that are 

matched against the watch list. 

Mr. COBLE. Baggage is not inspected? 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Baggage is not inspected, sir. On occasion, if 

we have a canine team present, they may make a sweep, but for 

the most part the baggage is not inspected. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chair, I have other questions, but in the interest 

of time, I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Representative Carney? 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Millar and Mr. Weiderhold, I appreciate your 

both coming for the Homeland Security Committee and the T and 

I Committee on back to back days, not a fate I would wish on anyone frankly. 

I hoped to ask you this question yesterday but didn’t have the 

opportunity. TSA continues to emphasize the importance of carriers 

identifying and reporting security risks to Homeland Security Officials. Has your industry promoted any whistleblower security or 

protections so that they can report these concerns without fear of 

retaliation or retribution from employers? 

27

Mr. MILLAR. The majority of our employees are public employees 

who are covered by whistleblower. While we have not specifically 

spoken to our members about whether they think more needs to be 

done in that area, it is a common and normal part of our practice. 

Mr. WEIDERHOLD. Amtrak employees are not Federal employees 

so they are not covered by the general Whistleblower Protection 

Act. They are, however, covered by the Railroad Safety Act. My office does investigations with respect to violations for railroad accident reporting, and there are also some analogies in the Inspector 

General Act that has authority over Amtrak. So we are familiar 

with whistleblower protection, and in fact my office is charged with 

enforcing that on our railroad. 

Mr. CARNEY. All right, thank you. 

I yield back, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Representative Boustany? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rabkin, thanks for your report, and I read it. I was listening 

very intently to your verbal testimony, and I want to take a few 

quotes, one being you said the Country cannot sustain current fiscal policy. The second one was resources are limited. The third 

quote is there is no national strategy. 

As I read your report, I am very, very concerned about the interagency cooperation between the Department of Transportation and 

the Department of Homeland Security. Certainly, you have highlighted what has happened with the memorandum of understanding, and certainly those represent a first step. But in looking 

at some of the other things we have asked for statutorily, we have 

asked for certain plans to be presented to this Committee, and as 

of March 2nd, 2007, TSA has not issued a transportation-specific 

sector plan and there are others highlighted in your report. 

There is a recurrent theme here. The agencies are very good at 

policy but very poor at implementation. As we look at moving legislatively, what should be our next steps in your opinion? 

Mr. RABKIN. There have been a couple of references to disappointments with the Department of Homeland Security and following through on directives that both the Congress and the President have given them, certainly in terms of meeting deadlines and 

also in terms of substantively coming up with strategies and plans. 

Holding them accountable by, first of all, ensuring that their activities are more transparent, that more of this information is shared 

with the committees and their staffs and holding oversight hearings on them to get them to answer these questions is probably the 

best way to do it. 

In our experience, in the end, what it comes down to is they listen to the power of the purse, and if you tie appropriations to their 

reporting or producing, it seems to get their attention and their 

track record is a little better at that. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you because I share the same concerns 

that my colleague, Mr. Duncan, also expressed, and that is we 

want to take care of security, but we want to do it wisely. To continue to just throw money at a situation where we are not getting 

results is really not good policy. 

As we dig into this, you can bring department heads, but again 

I guess the power of the purse is the one real stick in this process. 

28

Mr. RABKIN. The appropriations committees have appropriated 

funds to DHS to carry out their functions and then withheld part 

of that until they produced plans of how they are going to spend 

the money, both in that year or over a longer term as part of a 

broader strategy. That has at least gotten the department’s attention and has at least made them more responsive in laying out 

more specific plans. 

One of our frustrations with them, we put them on our high risk 

list of Federal programs that were more prone to fraud, waste, 

abuse and mismanagement even before they opened their doors, 

and they remain on the list because of problems in transforming 

the disparate agencies that were pulled together into an operating 

department. They have been focusing on their mission work. Their 

management activities have evidently been second fiddle. We think 

it is about time. These things do take time, these kinds of major 

transformations. But it is time for them to start producing results 

in terms of how they are managing the department and how they 

are responding to Congress, et cetera. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Do any of you other gentlemen want to comment on this? 

Mr. MILLAR. I will just say we completely agree on that point. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay, thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

I had some questions, but I am going to forego at this point because I do want to get to the next panel. I think it would not be 

fair to ask them to hang around while we listen to the King of Jordan, however long he might talk. 

Thank you all for your testimony. The members certainly can 

submit questions for the record or contact you folks individually to 

get answers to their questions. Thank you again. 

I would call the next panel, and let us move along as quickly as 

we can so we can hopefully hear from all of them before we become 

pumpkins. 

Mr. Hamberger, Association of American Railroads; Mr. Tolman, 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen; and Mr. Durbin, American Chemistry Council. 

Just start talking, Ed. 

TESTIMONY OF ED HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; JOHN P. TOLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN, A DIVISION OF THE 

TEAMSTERS RAIL CONFERENCE; MARTY DURBIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here to discuss freight railroad security in general 

and the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act in 2007, in 

particular. 

I will skip with the background I was going to give on all the activity and actions the industry has taken since 9/11. I believe the 

Committee is fully aware of that. 

29

The written testimony which I submitted was due at a point in 

time when we had not had an opportunity to really review H.R. 

1269, so I would ask permission to submit more detailed comments 

on the legislation for the record. 

Having said that, I would like to make three points on the bill. 

First, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee 

Chairs Brown and DeFazio for recognizing the unique characteristics of the Transportation Technology Center (TTCI) in Pueblo, Colorado. We appreciate your putting TTCI in as a member of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC). Today, a facility specifically targeted at emergency response training for freight 

and passenger railroad environments is notably absent from the 

NDPC, and this corrects that oversight. Similarly, we support the 

provision calling on DHS to establish a research and development 

program for projects related to railroad security. I have specific recommendations in my written statement. 

Secondly, we recognize the importance of whistleblower protection. I am sorry Mr. Carney had to leave. But the fact is that railroad employees already receive whistleblower protection under the 

Federal Railroad Safety Act. Creating a new separate system under 

the Department of Labor seems to be duplicative and potentially 

confusing since many of the issues may surround both safety and 

security. We would suggest that perhaps a better approach would 

be to expand, if you feel it necessary, current whistleblowing provisions in the Federal Railroad Safety Act to encompass security 

issues so that there is one system and not two parallel systems in 

existence out there. 

Third, the issue of employee training. We do take that very seriously. Working with the National Transit Institute at Rutgers University, we have developed an interactive uniform security awareness curriculum for freight railroad employees. We submitted this 

training regimen to both DHS and DOT in 2006 and have received 

very positive responses from them. Recently, TSA inspectors surveyed 2,600 railroad employees and found that 80 percent have a 

medium or high level of security training. All front line Class I railroad employees will have completed this security training by the 

end of this year, and we will have written confirmation of that. 

As I look at your legislation, I would just draw attention that 

some of the elements that are in the training requirements might 

be more appropriate for transit workers than freight rail workers. 

Training on the evacuation of passengers from tunnels would be 

one example. 

A second example concerns the requirement of our railroad employees to investigate the seriousness of the matter at hand. We believe that the appropriate security training can be stated in three 

Rs: recognize that something is not right; record what you can, for 

example, a license plate number; and then report to the appropriate authorities—in our case, the railroad police, local responders 

or the National Terrorism Taskforce of the FBI. We just think we 

need to make sure that we are not training our employees to get 

into dangerous situations. 

The last point I would make is the following. It is very appropriate that I am here with a representative of labor and a representative of the American Chemistry Council because we have a 

30

long history of working together with both these organizations on 

safety and security matters. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks for that succinct presentation. 

Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Thank you and good morning, Chairman DeFazio, 

Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Members Duncan and Shuster, members of the Subcommittees. 

My name is John Tolman, and I am a Vice President of the 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and serve on the policy committee for the Teamsters Rail Conference. Thank you for inviting 

me here today to testify on the issue of rail security. On behalf of 

the 70,000 members of the Teamsters Rail Conference, I would like 

to thank you for the interest in this subject and applaud both the 

Homeland Security Committee and the T and I Committee for introducing rail legislation. 

We look forward to working with you on, I guess, fine tuning 

that. In lack of time, I guess I am not going to comment specifically 

on the pieces of legislation. 

As you know, the issue of rail security is a vital concern for all 

rail workers including the Teamsters Rail Conference, members 

represented by the BLET and the Brotherhood of Maintenance 

Away Workers. The Teamsters Rail Conference is dedicated to improving rail security and safety in America in order to adequately 

protect rail workers and communities they serve. Each and every 

day, we are on the front lines of our Nation’s transportation system 

and see the woeful lack of security on our railroads. 

As you know, there are many components that make of the issue 

of rail security. Today, I would like to discuss four of these issues: 

training, whistleblower protection, rerouting of hazardous material 

and Transportation Worker Identification Credential program. 

Locomotive engineers and trainmen and track maintenance 

workers are the true first responders to rail emergencies, the eyes 

and ears of the industry. Worker training is one area of grave concern for rail workers because rail security measures have been 

given very little attention that they deserve. Even since 9/11 and 

the attacks of rail and transit systems overseas, the security training given the rail employees has been minimal and usually comprised of nothing more than a printed brochure and a 10 minute 

videotape. Moreover, 80 percent of the members who participated 

in the rail security safety survey said that they have not received 

any additional security training since 9/11. 

Therefore, we respectfully request that Congress pass legislation 

that will compel rail corporations to train their employees properly 

on proper safety evacuation procedures, the use of appropriate 

emergency escape apparatus, the special handling of hazardous 

materials and roles and responsibilities of rail employees within 

the railroad security plans, including an understanding of the 

plans’ threat level index and notification to employees each time 

the threat level is changed. 

Unfortunately, the same employees who are given so little training by the railroads are still being intimidated and harassed when 

they report security problems. Strong whistleblower protections 

must be a component of rail security legislation. Railroad workers 

31

should not and cannot be subject to dismissal when they provide 

security threat information to the Government. 

Mandatory rerouting of hazardous materials for safety reasons 

would further jeopardize the safety of these same employees and 

the communities through which we travel. Mandatory rerouting 

sounds like a good idea in theory, but it is not a practical solution 

except on very rare occasions. 

Much of the infrastructure in the industry is at or near capacity, 

and there are both labor and equipment shortages in many areas. 

Furthermore, given the nature of the train operation and FRA requirements, locomotive engineers and conductors and track inspectors cannot simply be shifted from route to route the way a truck 

can be diverted from one interstate highway to another. Qualification requirements are territory-specific and exacting. Simply put, 

there is not enough slack in the system to reroute hazardous material on a large scale without the system experiencing significant 

delays and disruptions. 

Similarly, the Rail Conference believes that the Transportation 

Worker Identification Credential program is a mixed blessing. The 

Conference understands the need for heightened security against 

terrorist attacks that target American rail facilities and believes 

that a limited, properly designed safeguard TWIC program as one 

element of a comprehensive integrated anti-terrorist rail security 

system could help and protect our railroads from attack. Unfortunately, the program established by TSA in conjunction with the 

Coast Guard poses a cure that is worse than the illness in some 

respects. 

The Teamsters Rail Conference looks forward to working with 

the Committee and any questions, I would be glad to answer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. Durbin? 

Mr. Durbin. I will also try to be brief here. Again, as Mr. Hamberger said, we too are analyzing 1269 right now, and we look forward to getting back to the Committee with more detailed comments on the bill itself. 

Again, I would just like to echo that we are happy to say there 

has been a long history of close cooperation on safety and security 

between the chemical industry, the labor unions and the rail industry. 

But as a representative of the materials that are being transported, let me point out that the products that are supplied by the 

chemistry sector, including the hazardous chemicals, are essential 

to virtually every aspect of our lives. In fact, more than 96 percent 

of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry, which 

is one of the reasons that DHS recognizes our industry as critical 

infrastructure. So the flawed view that chemicals are an unnecessary risk that need to be eliminated is thankfully being rejected. 

Now Congress wisely established a comprehensive national regulatory system for hazardous materials transportation administered 

by DOT. The goal of that system is to ensure that chemicals and 

other hazardous materials are delivered safely, securely and reliably. The goal is not to prevent their movement. That is the appropriate focus. While DHS has been given an important role in transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34784 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
32

portation security, it should continue to rely on the unmatched 

hazmat regulatory experience at DOT. 

For ACC members, security was a priority well before the events 

of 9/11. Following the terror attacks, we went even further. We 

didn’t wait for Government action but instead developed the Responsible Care Security Code which became mandatory for our 

members in 2002 and covers facilities, cyber systems and transportation, and our members have already invested over $3.5 billion in 

that effort and certainly will continue to do so because we understand the stakes and our responsibilities. 

Under the Code, the ACC and its members continue to work 

closely with the rail industry as well as with appropriate Government officials to develop more robust security operations. Among 

many other actions, our members efforts have included enhancing 

inspections and increasing surveillance along rail lines, and so far 

the partnership of the railroads has been strong and effective. In 

fact, we work together with the railroads on many issues. We share 

similar views with the proposed rulemaking underway at TSA and 

DOT and have long cooperated and invested in training systems 

and technology. We will continue to do. A superb example is the 

recently announced joint venture between Dow Chemical and 

Union Pacific to improve shipment visibility, tank car design and 

to reduce the rail time of hazmat shipments in high threat areas. 

The fact is that we, that is, the chemical industry, the railroads 

and the Government, must continue to work together to protect 

these shipments and ensure their safety and security. 

For ACC members, continuous improvement is part of Responsible Care. It is ACC’s industry leading program and very much a 

part of the way we do business. Responsible Care requires us to 

look for new ways to enhance safety and security, whether the subject is new technology or new procedures and protocols. We are 

working cooperatively with the Federal Government, the railroads 

and tank car manufacturers as FRA develops a rulemaking for new 

rail tank car designs. Inputs to that process include industry efforts coordinated through the Next Generation of Rail Tank Car 

project and Government initiatives such as research coming from 

DOT’s Volpe Center. 

Emergency response is another critical component of hazardous 

materials transportation safety. I am pleased to say that again, 

this is another area where since the 1980s, we have worked with 

our member companies together with the railroads to put together 

TRANSCAER, a voluntary national outreach effort to help communities prepare for and respond to hazardous materials incidents. 

In addition, ACC’s CHEMTREC program, now in its 36th year, 

provides a successful blueprint for sharing expertise and experience 

with today’s emergency responders. Located at our headquarters in 

Arlington, CHEMTREC is recognized by DOT and other agencies 

as a valuable source of information and expert counsel regarding 

hazmat incidents. I am proud to say CHEMTREC has been a behind the scenes partner to a variety of Government organizations 

and programs including NASA after the unfortunately Columbia 

Space Shuttle disaster and the U.S. Army in support of our troops 

in Afghanistan. 

33

As a further improvement to CHEMTREC’s capabilities, CSX 

Transportation and CHEMTREC launched a joint program to provide even more timely and useful information to emergency responders. 

I want to personally invite the members of the Committee to tour 

our CHEMTREC facility in Rosslyn to see how we work with local 

responders and help protect your communities. So I will follow up 

with staff on that. 

We look forward to working closely with the Committee, the Congress and Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security 

and other stakeholders to make this happen. 

I will conclude my remarks. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

We have about eight minutes left. There is, unfortunately, a very 

strict rule in the House that we can’t meet during joint sessions, 

so I will defer to anybody on my side who has an urgent question. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

Mr. Tolman and Mr. Hamberger, and I will give you this in writing, but I want an extension on the whistleblowing protections. 

Why is it important, Mr. Hamberger? Whether you support it, Mr. 

Tolman. 

I don’t understand. I have talked to many men in the field, and 

they have a concern that if they report what they view as security 

breaches, they will be fired. I would like to hear some discussion, 

maybe briefly and then in writing. 

In addition, Mr. Hamberger, would you also speak, and I will 

give it to you in writing, about security training. There is a concern 

from the people in the field that they have not gotten adequate 

training. You know it came up at our last hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for being so succinct. 

Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Just a quick question to Mr. Hamberger and Mr. 

Tolman on the whistleblower protection, do you see that as something that should be at the Labor Department or do you want it 

part of the Rail Safety Act? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, as I indicated in my dash through my 

opening statement, Mr. Shuster, we believe———

Mr. SHUSTER. So fast I missed it. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. We believe that it would be more logical to have the current Federal rail safety whistleblowing system 

expanded to cover security rather than set up a parallel system at 

the Department of Labor. We are not covered by OSHA. We are 

covered by Federal Railroad Administration. So it just seems logical to keep it at the FRA. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Tolman? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Yes, I did read the language in Chairman Oberstar’s bill, and I think that is exactly where it belongs. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. I can tell, Mr. Tolman, you 

are not an attorney, and Mr. Hamberger is an attorney. The length 

of the answer was much different so thank you. 

Mr. TOLMAN. I am just trying to be brief. He is trying to be long. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Duncan? 

34

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me just say very quickly, Mr. Hamberger, I 

want to commend you on what your organization has done just voluntarily, and I hope that for all the organizations that have been 

testifying here today. Mr. Siano, for instance, testified that his 

members were scared. There is a Federal role but also I think as 

a good union, if their employees are scared, they would do some 

things on their own to help better serve their union members. I 

would say that to all the organizations here. There are certain 

things that you can and should be doing on your own. 

We are going to submit our questions for the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Anybody else on the Democratic side, quick question? 

Representative Napolitano? 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Not a question but rather a statement that I 

am hearing a lot of information that I didn’t have before, and I am 

certainly aware that things have not been going too well in some 

areas insofar as the rail safety is concerned. 

I am hoping that out of this we will be able to move forward, and 

I hate to call it a mandate but have Homeland Security and have 

the agencies work with the railroads, work with the communities 

to come up with the answers because it isn’t one individual that 

needs to impose those requirements and regulations on the general 

public nor on the railroads nor on those that really have very little 

to do with it. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. 

Mr. Hamberger, I know that AAR has helped developed railroad 

tank cars that are capable of withstanding derailment, collisions 

with highway vehicles and other severe impacts. I want to put a 

hypothetical to you. How would these cars, these tank cars react 

if a projectile did, in fact, strike the tank? Would it be a Hollywood 

style explosion or minor league? I know hypotheticals are difficult 

to answer sometimes. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I believe it would depend in the first case, of 

course, on what the projectile was and, secondly, what was the 

angle of the projectile coming in. It is possible, depending on the 

distance and the kind of projectile that it would, in fact, not penetrate. But let us be honest, there are projectiles out there that 

clearly would penetrate. If that were to occur, this material travels 

under pressure. It is liquid as it travels under pressure. When it 

released into the atmosphere—again, we are talking just those 

hundred thousand carloads of chlorine, anhydrous ammonia and 

others—it would then of course form a gas and plume which is 

toxic. 

Mr. COBLE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have got about one minute left. Any other 

questions? 

Okay, I want to thank the panel. Thank you for being succinct 

and delivering a lot of information. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I think that Mr. Tolman would 

join me. The last time we testified here, we were admonished by 

35

Chairwoman Brown and Mr. Shuster to go back and try to reach 

an agreement at the bargaining table. I am pleased to say that last 

week our organizations announced that they have reached a tentative agreement that will be going out for ratification over the 

next period of time. So I would just like to acknowledge the input 

from the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. She is a powerful chairperson. We all recognize 

that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When can we get a copy of that agreement, Mr. 

Chairman, do you think? I was just wondering. We hear about 

agreements in all these committees. I would like to see some of 

these agreements. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Does the panel have an answer? 

Mr. TOLMAN. We have not even distributed it to our members 

yet. It is not even put together. But, Congressman, as soon as we 

get it, we will be glad to. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When do you anticipate that will be? The only 

reason I am asking is because we hear these things in other committees all the time, and I would just like to see some of this stuff. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Right. The group that signed the agreement represents about 47 percent of rail labor. There is still another 53 percent of rail labor that has not signed an agreement, but within a 

week, I will give you a copy of that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Cummings. 

Again, I thank the panel members for their time and their testimony. 

The Committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]

36


34784.011
37


34784.012
38


34784.013
39


34784.014
40


34784.015
41


34784.016
42


34784.017
43


34784.018
44


34784.019
45


34784.020
46


34784.021
47


34784.022
48


34784.023
49


34784.024
50


34784.025
51


34784.026
52


34784.027
53


34784.028
54


34784.029
55


34784.030
56


34784.031
57


34784.032
58


34784.033
59


34784.034
60


34784.035
61


34784.036
62


34784.037
63


34784.038
64


34784.039
65


34784.040
66


34784.041
67


34784.042
68


34784.043
69


34784.044
70


34784.045
71


34784.046
72


34784.047
73


34784.048
74


34784.049
75


34784.050
76


34784.051
77


34784.052
78


34784.053
79


34784.054
80


34784.055
81


34784.056
82


34784.057
83


34784.058
84


34784.059
85


34784.060
86


34784.061
87


34784.062
88


34784.063
89


34784.064
90


34784.065
91


34784.066
92


34784.067
93


34784.068
94


34784.069
95


34784.070
96


34784.071
97


34784.072
98


34784.073
99


34784.074
100


34784.075
101


34784.076
102


34784.077
103


34784.078
104


34784.079
105


34784.080
106


34784.081
107


34784.082
108


34784.083
109


34784.084
110


34784.085
111


34784.086
112


34784.087
113


34784.088
114


34784.089
115


34784.090
116


34784.091
117


34784.092
118


34784.093
119


34784.094
120


34784.095
121


34784.096
122


34784.097
123


34784.098
124


34784.099
125


34784.100
126


34784.101
127


34784.102
128


34784.103
129


34784.104
130


34784.105
131


34784.106
132


34784.107
133


34784.108
134


34784.109
135


34784.110
136


34784.111
137


34784.112
138


34784.113
139


34784.114
140


34784.115
141


34784.116
142


34784.117
143


34784.118
144


34784.119
145


34784.120
146


34784.121
147


34784.122
148


34784.123
149


34784.124
150


34784.125
151


34784.126
152


34784.127
153


34784.128
154


34784.129
155


34784.130
156


34784.131
157


34784.132
158


34784.133
159


34784.134
160


34784.135
161


34784.136
162


34784.137
163


34784.138
164


34784.139
165


34784.140
166


34784.141
167


34784.142
168


34784.143
169


34784.144
170


34784.145
171


34784.146
172


34784.147
173


34784.148
174


34784.149
175

Æ


34784.150