Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2095) to amend title 49, United States Code, to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, to authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, we gather here for an historic moment in the history of transportation, particularly the history of rail transportation. And I'm glad there are so many Members still gathered on the floor to listen to an erudite conversation that we are going to have on both sides of the aisle about the history of rail safety.

Although our committee has had jurisdiction over the rail sector for the past dozen years, this is the first time the committee has brought a rail safety authorization bill to the House floor. It is, in fact, only the second time in 100 years that the House will consider amendments, adjustments to the hours of service rule in the rail sector.

We bring to you an important bill that addresses long-neglected failings and shortcomings of safety in the rail sector that will make the railroad safer in the future; that will make jobs for workers in that sector safer in the future; that will make safer passage through towns through which railroads pass, often with toxic substances, toxic chemicals, frankly, the safest way to move those substances, but we are going to make it safer with this legislation.

I particularly want to thank the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for her persistent leadership, persistent efforts over the past years of service on the committee in support of rail safety; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), ranking member of the full committee, participating in substantive discussions that resulted in compromises that we bring to the floor; and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has a large rail presence in his own district and, of course, in the State of Pennsylvania.

In each of the past five Congresses, I have introduced for consideration by the committee broad scope rail safety legislation and pledged that if it isn't considered in each of those Congresses, when the majority would turn and I would have the opportunity to lead the committee, that we would move such legislation. And today we deliver on that commitment.

The discussions that we had were inclusive. They were extensive. They were intensive. There were adjustments made on both sides with the result that, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) said during consideration of the rule, this is a bipartisan bill.

The Federal Railroad Administration has reported that the total number of train accidents, collisions, derailments, and others increased from 2,504 in 1994 over the next decade to 3,325 in 2005. Thankfully, over the last year, that number decreased to 2,925. Those improvements in rail safety statistics are a good sign. But I know from more than 25 years of chairing subcommittees on safety issues that we have a long way to go. Serious accidents resulting in fatalities, injuries, and environmental damages continue to occur and will continue to occur. Equipment can fail, people make mistakes, storms happen that cause those accidents. But we have to do everything that is possible in our realm to make sure that those accidents are minimized.

Safety requires constant vigilance by workers on the job, by employers, by

government safety oversight agencies, and by the Congress. Whether it is in mining, whether in maritime, whether in aviation, trucking, highway passenger vehicle traffic, or in the railways, vigilance is the key to safety. Safety, I define, is the relative absence of risk. And when we apply that standard to every mode of transportation and we enforce it, we will achieve greater protection of the public interest.

The FRA says that 40 percent of all train accidents result from human factors, and that's a comparable number in the other modes of transportation as well. In railroading, one in four of those accidents results from fatigue. In testimony at our committee hearings, the National Transportation Safety Board said, ``The current railroad hours of service laws permit, and many rail carriers require, the most burdensome, fatigue-inducing work schedule of any federally regulated transportation mode in the country.'' And a comparison of the modes is revealing.

A commercial part 121 airline pilot can work up to 100 hours a month. A part 135, generally known as a charter operation, can work up to 120 hours a month. Shipboard personnel on ocean-going vessels can work up to 360 hours a month. A truck driver can be on duty for 350 hours a month. But in train crews, they can be on duty up to 432 hours a month. That's 14 hours a day for each of those 30 days.

Fatigue sets in. Fatigue causes people to lose concentration, to lose focus, to lose control. Vince Lombardi said, ``Fatigue makes cowards of us all.'' He didn't mean physical cowards. He meant inability to make the right judgments.

And that's what fatigue does in the workplace. If you have any question about it, look at some of the things we say around this body at 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning after 14 or 16 hours of debate. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you listen to it or when you read it. And it doesn't make any better sentence in the locomotive.

Congress made some slight modifications to the hours of service law in 1969, but this bill is the first major reform of rail hours of service standards since 1907. Our duty is to make hours of service safer and better. And this bill provides signal and train crews with rest, prohibits them from working more than 12 hours in a day, limits limbo time. I said in the beginning of the hearing, if it was good enough for the Pope to eliminate limbo, it ought to be good enough for the Congress to at least limit it in rail service.

The bill also requires all class 1 railroads to implement a positive train control system, which was the NTSB's most wanted transportation safety improvement since this was developed in 1990.

The legislation also addresses track safety. In 2006, track-related accidents surpassed human factors as the leading cause of all train accidents. Just look at the list. Most recently, in Oneida, New York; Pico Rivera in California; Home Valley in Washington; Minot, North Dakota; Nodaway, Iowa. All of them raise serious questions about the condition and the safety of the track on the Nation's railways, call into question the adequacy of track safety regulation and FRA's, Federal Railroad Association's, oversight of those conditions.

This bill requires the railroads to inspect their tracks, to look for internal defects, and provides increased funding for Federal Railroad Administration for track inspection technology, and strengthens enforcement at the Federal Railroad Administration.

FRA investigated just 13 percent of the most serious grade crossing collisions. We've got to do better than that. In 2004, the FAA conducted onsite investigations of 1,392, 93 percent of the aviation accidents that FAA had responsibility for investigating, but the FRA did only 13 percent. That's not good enough. That's not conducting oversight. That's not accepting and exercising your governmental oversight responsibility and responsibility to the public.

We increase the number of inspectors for safety at the FRA. We will double the number of Federal rail safety inspectors over the next 4 years. And we do many other items that are of great importance. I will include in the Record at this point the committee document that lists in specific detail all those safety improvements.

H.R. 2095, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007

Reauthorizes the FRA

Establishes the FRSA. Re-establishes the Federal Railroad

Administration as the Federal Railroad Safety Administration

(FRSA), which shall consider the assignment and maintenance

of safety as the highest priority. Creates a new position of

Chief Safety Officer.

Rail Safety Strategy. Requires the Secretary to develop a

long-term strategy for improving rail safety, which must

include an annual plan and schedule for, among other things,

reducing the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and

fatalities involving railroads.

Reports. Requires regular reporting from the Department of

Transportation's Inspector General and the National

Transportation Safety Board on the FRSA's progress in

implementing statutory mandates and open safety

recommendations.

Financing. Increases funding for the Federal rail safety

program for fiscal years 2008 through 2011, as follows: $230

million for FY2008; $260 million for FY2009; $295 million for

FY2010; and $335 million for FY2011. In addition, $18 million

is authorized for the design, development, and construction

of the Facility for Underground Rail Station and Tunnel at

the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado.

Worker and Public Safety

Hours of Service Reform. Provides signal and train crews

with additional rest; prohibits them from working in excess

of 12 hours; extends hours-of-service standards to railroad

contractors; limits limbo time; eliminates the use of camp

cars; and requires railroads to develop fatigue management

plans.

Training. Establish minimum training standards for railroad

workers, and requires the certification of conductors and

carmen.

Medical Attention. Prohibits railroads from denying,

delaying, or interfering with the medical or first aid

treatment of injured workers, and from disciplining those

workers that request treatment. Also requires railroads to

arrange for immediate transport of injured workers to the

nearest hospital.

Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus. Provides emergency

breathing apparatus for all crewmembers on freight trains

carrying hazardous materials that would pose an inhalation

hazard in the event of unintentional release.

Installation of Safety Technologies. Mandates

implementation of positive train control by December 31,

2014, and authorizes the FRSA to establish a grant program to

assist railroads in implementing this requirement. Also

requires railroads to either install technologies in

nonsignaled territories that alert train crews of misaligned

switches or operate trains in such areas at speeds that will

allow them to safely stop in advance of a misaligned switch.

Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance. Directs the NTSB

to establish a program to assist victims and their families

involved in a passenger rail accident, modeled after a

similar aviation disaster program.

Track Safety

Internal Rail Defects. Requires railroads to conduct

inspections to ensure that rail used to replace defective

segments of existing rail is free from internal defects, and

to perform integrity inspections to manage an annual service

failure rate of less than 0.1 per track mile on high-risk

corridors. Also encourages railroad use of advanced rail

defect inspection equipment and similar technologies as part

of a comprehensive rail inspection program.

Concrete Crossties. Directs the FRSA to develop and

implement regulations for all classes of track for concrete

rail ties.

Inspection Technologies. Directs the FRSA to purchase, with

amounts appropriated, six Gage Restraint Measurement System

vehicles and five track geometry vehicles to enable the

deployment of one Gage Restraint Measurement System vehicle

and one track geometry vehicle in each region.

Grade Crossing Safety

Toll Free Number to Report Grade Crossing Problems.

Requires the railroads to establish and maintain a toll-free

telephone number for reporting malfunctions of grade crossing

signals, gates, and other devices and disabled vehicles

blocking railroad tracks.

Sight Distance. Directs the railroads to remove overgrown

vegetation at grade crossings, which can obstruct the view of

approaching pedestrians and vehicles.

Accident and Incident Reporting. Requires the FRSA to

conduct periodic audits of railroads to ensure they are

reporting all accidents and incidents the National Accident

Database.

National Crossing Inventory. Requires railroads to report

current information, including information about warning

devices and signage, on grade crossings to enable the FRSA to

maintain an accurate inventory of such crossings.

State Action Plan. Requires the Secretary to identify on an

annual basis the top 10 States that have had the most grade

crossing collisions, and to work with them to develop a State

Grade Crossing Action Plan that identifies specific solutions

for improving safety at grade crossings.

Emergency Grade Crossing Improvements. Establishes a grant

program to provide

emergency grade crossing safety improvements at locations

where there has been a grade crossing collision involving a

school bus or multiple injuries/fatalities.

Enforcement

Civil Penalties. Increases civil penalties for certain rail

safety violations from $10,000 to $25,000. The minimum civil

penalty remains $500. For grossly negligent violations or a

pattern of repeated violations, the maximum civil penalty is

increased from $20,000 under current law to not more than

$100,000.

Criminal Penalties. Increases the maximum penalty for

failing to me an accident or incident report from $500 to

$2,500.

Enforcement Transparency. Requires the FRA to provide a

monthly updated summary to the public of all railroad

enforcement actions taken by the Secretary.

Safety Investigations. Makes it unlawful for any person to

knowingly interfere with, obstruct, or hamper an

investigation by the Secretary of Transportation or the

National Transportation Safety Board.

Railroad Radio Monitoring. Authorizes the FRSA to intercept

and record certain railroad radio communications for the

purpose of correcting safety problems and mitigating the

likelihood of accidents or incidents.

Inspector Staffing. Doubles the number of Federal rail

safety inspectors by December 31, 2011.

Other

Tunnel Information. Requires railroads to maintain certain

information related to structural inspections and maintenance

activities for tunnels, and requires those railroads to

provide periodic briefings to the government of the local

jurisdictions in which the tunnels are located, including

updates whenever a repair or rehabilitation projects alters

the methods of ingress and egress into and out of the

tunnels.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Chair of our Rail Subcommittee, Ms. Brown, the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, for his support of the bill. I am delighted to learn that the gentleman spent so much time on the railroad going through college. We share that. I worked on the rail during my years in the iron ore mines. I worked those double-aught shifts, as well, and I know how hard hours of service are and how important it is for us to put those limits on.

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I express my great sympathy to the gentleman from Ohio on the tragedy, and for his description of it, and also my appreciation for his kind words about our work on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), whose district includes the greatest confluence of rail in the whole country.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I again want to express my great appreciation to Ms. Brown for years of advocacy for rail issues and for her championing of the rail safety matters, and to thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has devoted a great deal of energy and time and effort to rail from his first day on the committee, asking the committee to hold a hearing in 2001 in his district on rail maintenance yard issues and continuation of rail service. It turned out to be a very enlightening hearing.

He has remained engaged in the issues. As the gentleman said a moment ago, we did not just throw issues on the table; we rather sat around the table after the hearings and discussed in detail repeatedly subject matters, made concessions on each side, adjustments, understanding each other's concerns, and reached not the ideal of each side, but ideal in the best public interest. The result is, I believe, a bill that substantially advances the cause of rail safety.

I must say in passing that it diminishes the substance of the bill to say that it is, as the previous speaker did, a gift to rail labor. This is a gift to all Americans, to all residents of communities that are home to railroads, to rail makeup yards through which the goods of America move, through which the coal and the grain and the containers move. It is safety for them. It is safety for the workers on the railroads. It is in the best interest of all America. I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis on August 1 while I was at this very microphone managing a conference report on water resources amendments stunned the Nation, stunned this House. It startled my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation and our colleagues on the committee.

But shortly after that, the Federal Railroad Administration and the GAO warned that many of the Nation's 76,000 railroad bridges may also be at risk.

FRA on September 11 issued a rail safety advisory on railroad bridges, reporting that 52 accidents over the period 1982 to 1986 were caused by the catastrophic structural failure of railroad bridges. The most recent accident was the M&B Railroad near Myrtlewood, Alabama, where a train of solid-fuel rocket motors derailed when a timber trestle railroad bridge collapsed under that train. Several cars, one carrying a rocket motor, rolled onto their side. Six people were injured.

Bridge failures do not account for the majority of train accidents, but FRA noted and updated their guidelines and reported that they have found instances ``where lack of adherence to the FRA's bridge safety policy resulted in trains operating over structural deficiencies in steel bridges that could easily have resulted in serious train accidents.'' We deal with that issue, among others, in this manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to point out that in the manager's amendment, we strike section 301, the whistleblower provision, and section 616, the preemption provision, which was included in the security bill. And I note those two because they are two of the five objections the administration raises in its statement of administration policy, so they are objecting to two items not in the bill nor in the manager's amendment. Therefore, I urge support of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to point out that although the gentleman is right, the FRA did deny Union Pacific, the denial is ``without prejudice to the submission of a future request addressing the same subject matter,'' so the issue remains alive and it seems appropriate to address it in this manner.

The gentleman does raise a concern about the NAFTA agreement and such language might run in contravention, but safety always trumps other issues. In our aviation trade agreements with other countries, the U.S. rules on safety prevail over those of the trading nation. We are elevating this whole role of safety in the FRA and changing its title to the Federal Railroad Safety Administration.

I think we should explore further in that context and with relationship to aviation the effect of NAFTA and the effect this language might have within NAFTA, and I will be glad to pursue that with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Under the rule, the gentlewoman from California has the right to close on her amendment?

Mr. Chairman, with the further caveat about the issues raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania about the possible effect on NAFTA, a matter going forward we can review with the appropriate authorities, I urge support for the amendment of the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the essential issue here is not whether the noxious fumes, whether the groundwater pollution caused by solid waste deposited on rail property should be regulated. The question here is whether the language and the manner in which the gentleman proposes to prevent those effects upon nearby communities is in interference with the authority and the preemption authority of the Federal Railroad Administration.

Mr. Mulvey, one of the commissioners of the Surface Transportation Board, said, ``I believe that an amendment such as this is necessary to redress the growing misuse of Federal railroad preemption law . . . with respect to solid waste transload facilities.'' But he, too, expresses concerns that it could be interpreted too broadly to frustrate the zoning of legitimate solid waste transfer facilities.

This is an issue, he says, that can be worked out. It can be worked out, and we are committed to doing so, with participation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think it's clear the amendment does not apply to containerized facilities. They still are subject to the Federal preemption. The only question is whether there's infringement on preemption with open facilities, open solid waste storage facilities. That is a matter on which I think with further discussion we can reach an amicable resolution.

I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes.

This is a proposal that really does have a thousand fathers. The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is an advocate for this initiative; I believe the Governor of his State is an advocate for it, as the mayor of Los Angeles is an advocate for it. I know the City of San Diego and their planning organization are for this kind of initiative, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach is an advocate for this. And I am an advocate for it. And I think that in this initiative we have found the ideal solution to intermodalism, to movement of goods, reduction of noise, of pollution, of accidents, of intersection of goods, people, and vehicles by adopting the maglev technology. This was an idea that I advocated well in advance of ISTEA in 1991. We got first funding in the ISTEA legislation for study of maglev technology. And then in TEA-21, under then Chairman Shuster, advocating experimental projects. It took years of development, but finally General Atomics, under contract with the Department of Transportation, perfected the technology. And then it was the Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles that said we would like to move containers with it before you start moving people. The ideal solution. I wish I had thought of it myself. But it was the port that came to the idea, and then the gentleman from California working with the port authority and with the State embraced this idea.

This can be a very exciting, successful initiative. We have a paying customer, containers. And with a combination of some Federal grant funding and loans from the railroad infrastructure loan program to whatever the sponsoring authority may be, it can be a State, it can be a railroad, this project can be very successful. We can have one not only in California but in discussion with the Chair of the Rail Subcommittee, Ms. Brown, the Port of Jacksonville would be interested in such an initiative.

So I just want to point out that while the gentleman advances the cause, it is not limited only to California. The language of the amendment says, authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to design and develop a pilot electric cargo conveyor system for the transportation of containers from ports to depots outside of urban areas. A brilliant solution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Chair of our Subcommittee on Rail, Ms. Brown.

If the gentlewoman would yield, the language is very broad. It says: Such sums as may be necessary to design and develop a pilot electric conveyor system. But I think that is not limited to one. That is broad enough language to be interpreted as to embrace more than one such project. It would be done by the Department of Transportation through the Federal Railroad Administration with appropriated funds. But also, the applicant has the authority under existing law in the SAFETEA-LU bill to apply for some of the $35 billion in railroad infrastructure loan funding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Earlier, I said this project has a thousand fathers. I should have said a thousand parents, because there are mothers and fathers in the presence of the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentlewoman from California, the newest member of our committee, Ms. Richardson.

And I love the gentleman's enthusiasm. Mr. Rohrabacher has from the time we began discussing this project been a very vigorous and knowledgeable supporter of the project. He has

also worked to bring local interests in to work with the Governor of California. I think with this enthusiasm and with this broad bipartisan and bicoastal interest, the Pacific Coast and the Atlantic Coast, that we will see something happen. There is going to be a project resulting from this when we get this legislation enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rather frivolous amendment.

The only thing I can say for it is that I wish the gentleman had been here in 1995 when the Republican majority forced upon National Airport and the Washington Metropolitan Area Government Authority, Airport Authority, the changing of the name to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. And they did so, I say to the gentleman from Idaho, with their finger in the nose of the authorities, saying either you make the changes and you spend the money or we'll take your money away from you. And they said it right here on this floor.

What was the purpose of changing the name of that airport? No useful benefit.

We are creating a new safety emphasis for the Federal Railroad Administration.

In 1996, this committee and this Congress created a Motor Carrier Safety Administration. I didn't hear anybody jump up on the floor and say, Oh, my God, it's going to cost money to change the stationery of the agency.

Baloney. It doesn't cost any money at all. You just use up the existing stationery you have and print new ones. It doesn't cost you any new money. This is bogus. I have no idea where people get such ideas as this.

But when it comes to some priority that some people on the other side of the aisle had in previous Congresses, they shove it down the throat of the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority and say, You will change the name on all the facilities. You will change, they said to the National Park Service, signs leading to the airport, and you will do it at your expense, at the Federal Government expense.

Here it's going to be a change of stationery. You run out of the existing stationery they have and print new ones that says ``safety'' on it.

Maybe he's getting at something more sinister. Maybe the gentleman doesn't want ``safety'' to be in the title of this agency. Maybe the gentleman doesn't want, and anyone who votes for such an amendment, doesn't want ``safety'' to be in the name of the agency that regulates safety in the public interest.

Vote against this amendment. This is nonsense.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are here today to consider one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will undertake this year, as the chairman pointed out, the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2007.

As the chairman pointed out, there are still accidents that occur and there are still deaths that occur on rail, but to put that into perspective, in 2006, it was in fact the safest year ever in our Nation's railroad history.

Over the past 30 years, we have made tremendous progress in reducing the number of train accidents and deaths that occur around our rail yards and railroad lines. Let me give you some of those statistics.

In 1996, there were 33 railroad employees that were killed; in 2006, it's down to 16. Now, that's 16 too many, and we can continue to reduce that as we're attempting to do in this bill, but as you can see, there has been definite improvement.

Passenger trains, which were carrying, in 1996, 397 million people, in that year, there were 12 passengers killed. In 2006, there were 549 million passengers that were transported by train, and there were only two killed in 2006. Once again, a significant decrease. Any death is too many, but we're seeing positive results in the rail industry. In 1996, 488 people were killed at grade crossing accidents; and in 2006, that number, again, is down to 369.

While those numbers are high, this bill is going to address, as I will talk about here, how it's going to address those unsafe conditions and how we can improve making them safer for the traveling public and, of course, the rail industry.

One of the biggest issues we address in this bill is limbo time, the time that train crews must wait for pickup at the end of a run. Limbo time is very complicated. We went through some complicated negotiations, but in the end, limbo time will still exist. And I think it's important that people know that the limbo time that employees wait at the end of their run, they are being paid for limbo time, but it extends that waiting period and can result in crews being fatigued. So we phased that down in this bill. We phased down limbo time to 10 hours per month over a period of 3 years. Complete elimination of limbo time would have had some unintended consequences, like forcing train crew members to relocate their homes to new reporting points. The compromised language in this bill avoids disrupting the lives of rail workers and should permit railroad operations to continue smoothly and safely.

Another safety concern addressed in this bill is installation of positive train control, or PTC. The bill mandates that PTC be installed by the year 2014, but also provides up to 2 years of leeway in case a better or more effective system is developed.

Installation of PTC will likely cost about $3 billion, but the people that use the system will pay for that. That's not going to be passed on to the taxpayers, but the people that use the system and the rail industry will see some positive things happening in their operations to help them lower their costs. That's why I think it's important that we install an effective and reliable system, and this bill will ensure that.

I must admit that I think the bill still has some weaknesses, and we need to continue to improve in some critical areas. Grade crossing and trespassing fatalities, still the numbers are high. As I mentioned earlier, in 1996, there were 471 fatalities. That number went up, trespassers that died in 2006, to 517. And trespassers are people that are going onto rail properties illegally, they don't belong there, but those trespassing deaths are something we have to address.

Grade crossing fatalities. Again, we've seen them decrease, but we need to do more. I am grateful to Mr. Graves, who submitted an important amendment in the committee markup. The amendment is now part of the bill and authorizes up to $250,000 in emergency funding for a crossing which experiences a collision with a school bus or an accident where there is a fatality. Presently, if there is a fatality, that grade crossing just stays on the list, but with Mr. Graves' amendment, we're going to push it up until it's prioritized and make sure that crossing is dealt with in a timely manner.

I am also grateful to Mr. Brown from South Carolina, who helped us create a provision fostering the use of advanced warning devices at railroad crossings.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown, the subcommittee Chair, for working with me and Mr. Mica in trying to make this bill a better bill. As I said, there are still some improvements that we would like to see, and we will continue to work through the process to make the bill a stronger bill.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2095.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the distinguished former chairman of the Rail Subcommittee and one of America's experts in the rail industry.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I have no further speakers, so I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, through this process, we have had some significant differences, but we were able to work them out and produce a product that has bipartisan support in the committee. For me, it was a great experience working with Chairwoman Brown, but especially working with Chairman Oberstar. At times it was quite daunting to go into negotiations with somebody who not only knows the current issues of the rail history, but knows the vast history of the rail industry. So I made it through the process and learned quite a bit, and I appreciate the chairman and chairwoman for working with me, and also, of course, Mr. Mica for giving me the responsibility on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2095, the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Oberstar's manager's amendment contains several important provisions. First, it codifies FRA's existing safety advisory on railroad bridges. This provision will help ensure that the recent tragic collapse of the highway bridge in Minneapolis will never be repeated on our Nation's rail system.

The manager's amendment also modifies the Swift Act, which requires locomotives to sound whistles at every crossing in the Nation. The amendment will require the FRA to take into account the impact of horn use on local communities.

For example, the town of Baldwin, Florida, is only a mile wide, but has a number of rail crossings and heavy train traffic. According to Mayor Godbold of Baldwin, locomotives sound their horns over a thousand times per day in this small town. The amendment will help Baldwin and other towns balance issues of safety and noise pollution.

Finally, the manager's amendment makes some technical corrections deleting the preemption and the police provisions which have already been enacted in the 9/11 bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns with this amendment which attempts to regulate railcar brake inspections in Mexico.

As I understand it, this issue has already been dealt with by the FRA. The Union Pacific Railroad had requested a limited waiver to do certain air brake testing in Mexico, but the Federal Rail Administration denied that waiver. So air brake and other safety inspections are actually being done on the American side of the border.

A potentially larger issue is that this amendment attempts to regulate labor conditions in Mexico. This amendment would interfere with the existing flow of commerce across our southern border. I do not have an answer to that, but I am concerned it could be construed as violating NAFTA.

While I agree with Mrs. Napolitano's intent of ensuring a safe U.S. rail system, I have great concerns. But I hope we can work together as we go through conference to take care of my concerns. I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with STB preemption of laws regarding railroad waste transportation facilities. The Rail Subcommittee has held several hearings on this issue, one last year and another just yesterday.

I've a great interest in this issue, as my home State of Pennsylvania is the number one recipient of imported waste from other States, most of it coming from New Jersey and New York City. So, as I said, I've great concern.

At yesterday's hearing, we heard many complaints from local communities about illegal railroad, or not

even railroads, but people who claim the railroads, that are waste facilities. We also heard from the STB that most local laws are not currently preempted by Federal law. In fact, many entities claiming Federal preemption do not have legitimate claims.

I think it's clear that this law has to be clarified to make it easier to stop unscrupulous operators that Mr. Pallone mentioned in his State of New Jersey, but regarding Mr. Pallone's amendment, the STB has told our rail staff that this amendment needs improvement to accomplish that, to accomplish the stated goal of regulating railroad waste facilities.

In fact, I quote from a letter from the chairman of STB that says his ``general concern with the Pallone amendment is that it is overbroad and could result in local land use and zoning agencies exerting jurisdiction over legitimate rail transportation projects and impeding interstate commerce.''

In addition, the STB is already in the process of addressing many of these issues, which they need to do. If people were out there operating waste facilities in an illegal or unscrupulous manner, that needs to be addressed.

I would like to work with Mr. Pallone on this issue, but I'm going to oppose this amendment on those grounds. We need to encourage States to deal with their trash problem, all of us across this country. We all produce waste. We've got to make sure in our neighborhoods that we're taking care of our own waste and not shipping it to other States, and I'm just concerned that that's what will occur if this amendment is passed. And so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the chairman said. Again, I don't disagree with the situation that is occurring that appears significant in New Jersey.

I am concerned, as I stated, that this language is going to allow communities to stop legitimate and law-abiding rail entities and operations, to stop them when they don't like it. I have great concern in that.

I believe the trash issue, as I said, is significant. Pennsylvania is the biggest importer of trash in the Nation with 10 million tons every year coming across the border into Pennsylvania.

My concern is that this problem will get pushed out of New Jersey and out of other States into States that are more willing to handle it, and as I said, we all produce trash. I'm sure today I've got half a waste can or more in my office. My community produces trash. Communities have to deal with that problem.

Again, nobody wants a landfill in their backyard, but the reality is we've got to have landfills. We've got to have these waste transfer stations. We've got to make sure, though, that people that are operating them are operating them properly so that we're not damaging the environment, that we aren't doing negative things to our communities because, as we heard yesterday, outside of Philadelphia and Bensalem, Mr. Murphy's district, they were trying to redevelop their town, and right across the street, somebody wants to come in and put in a waste treatment facility or waste transfer station that's not going to be positive for that community.

So, again, local communities have to have some say, but we've got to make sure they're not overstepping and stopping legitimate operations.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I appreciate and look forward to having those discussions. I, again, oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out, this authorizes a program to install a pilot electric conveyer system for cargo. There have been several concepts developed for the Port of Los Angeles to move cargo using electric trucks, LNG trucks, automated shuttles, and even maglev. The general idea is, as Mr. Rohrabacher has pointed out, to get rid of the diesel trucks and move the cargo to outlying areas for transload to trains or truck. This would cut air pollution and potentially cut the congestion that exists now in the Port of Los Angeles, and would certainly benefit all of the Nation as we develop these types of transportation ideas.

I support Mr. Rohrabacher's goal of reducing congestion and pollution and urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Federal Railroad Administration was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, is charged with overseeing the Federal rail safety program.

As all of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, railroads crisscross every congressional district, and their safe operation is of national importance, especially since they play such an integral part in our national economy by transporting products and people to and from ports, and in the instance of products, from manufacturers, to suppliers, to the consumers.

Since 1978, there's been a dramatic decline in the number of railway accidents. Last year, there were just over 2,800 such accidents, obviously too many, but a significant decline compared to the past. Obviously more can be done to reduce the number of accidents and save lives, and more should be done.

FRA classifies the causes of train accidents into five categories: human factors, track and structures, equipment, signal and train control, and miscellaneous. Of those categories, human factors and track are responsible for the majority of train accidents. Last year, 2006, over 70 percent of such accidents were caused by human factors or track defects.

Most rail-related deaths are to pedestrians on rail lines, trying to cross obviously, and motorists colliding with trains at grade crossings. While there are nearly 1,000 rail-related deaths each year, about 20 to 30 rail employees unfortunately are killed while on duty each year.

The underlying legislation being brought forward by this rule, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, seeks to reduce the number of accidents caused by human fatigue by strengthening the hours of service law for signalmen and train crews. The legislation makes changes to what is known as limbo time, which is the wait period when locomotive crews wait for pickup after a day's run. Specifically, the bill phases down limbo time over 3 years, 40 to 30 to 10 hours per month. The bill also creates new exceptions to limbo time in the case of an accident, track obstruction, weather delays or natural disasters. It gives signal and train workers additional hours of rest, 10 hours in 24, and mandatory days off, 1 in 7.

The Department of Transportation estimates that by 2020 the amount of freight moved by rail, measured by weight, will increase by approximately 50 percent. Furthermore, many local governments are interested in establishing, or expanding, commuter rail operations, which often operate on the freight rail network. As a result, the number of train miles on the Nation's freight rail network will significantly increase in the coming years. If train accident rates do not improve, this will lead obviously to an increased number of accidents, injuries and fatalities and some of the gains of the past decade may be lost, and obviously we'd like to avoid that.

I'd like to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their bipartisan work on this legislation, especially on this issue of the limbo time. I think it goes to show that when people are willing to work together across the aisle to try to come up with compromises that good progress can be made.

Now, unlike the bipartisan nature by which the Transportation Committee worked on this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee did not live up to that standard. Only four out of 10 amendments. There were 10 amendments proposed. A lot of time those amendments take a lot of work by Members, a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of dedication, and only four out of the 10 amendments that Members brought to the Rules Committee were made in order, and of those, only one was an amendment by a Member of the Republican side of the aisle.

During consideration of this rule, Mr. Speaker, the minority made several attempts to make Republican amendments in order, but in the Rules Committee, the majority blocked each amendment by a party-line vote, and I think that's unfortunate. It's quite a contrast to how the Transportation Committee worked and some other committees in this Congress.

It's unfortunate, especially when we take into account the promises made by the majority that they would bring transparency and openness and fairness to the process. We see time and time and time again exactly the opposite. This is really sad.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inform my friend that we do not.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your courtesy. I thank my good friend Ms. Matsui for hers as well.

Again, with regard to the underlying legislation, it's important legislation. I think it's a good work product that's come forth from compromise, people reaching out from both sides of the aisle and working together. But the rule, unfortunately, is most unfair, as is typically the case with this new majority.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

I'd like to direct our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, Mr. John Sullivan, recently sent to the Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states

that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative proposition at all stages of the legislative process.''

I will insert this letter in the Record at this point.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan.

This amendment will restore the enforceability and accountability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I would urge all my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 724 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007. The resolution provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes four amendments in order. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

As the debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on both sides of the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference and onto the President's desk, and this rule reflects that consensus.

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown for their leadership in addressing rail safety issues. Attention and investment to the safety of our rail infrastructure and workers is needed.

Congress last reauthorized the Federal Railroad Administration, also known as FRA, rail safety programs in 1994 and that authorization lapsed in 1998. In the time since Congress last took a comprehensive look at railroad safety, much has changed with our Nation's freight and passenger rail infrastructure. The amount of goods transported by rail has increased dramatically and more often our population is turning to rail as an alternative to getting into their cars. This is creating a greater demand on our rail infrastructure.

The bill before us today, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, would authorize our Federal rail safety programs at $1.2 billion over 4 years. This bill makes important investments in our current rail safety programs and creates new grant programs for grade crossing safety and train control technology.

Additionally, the importance of safety will be reflected in the renaming of the FRA to the Federal Railroad Safety Administration. This is significant because a new name would emphasize the Federal role in the safety of rail transportation.

A fresh look at rail safety is long overdue. Over the next 20 years, the demand for freight and passenger rail is expected to grow and continue to play an important role in our economy and in our communities. Now is the time to make an investment in the safety of our rail infrastructure, as well as the training of the men and women who work on the rail lines. This way we can embrace the growth of our Nation's infrastructure and face it in a responsible way.

For example, the Department of Transportation has estimated that the amount of freight moved on rail will increase by 50 percent from 1998 to 2020. If you live in a community with a rail line, you are already experiencing this growth firsthand. In my district of Sacramento, there are two freight lines, and the largest railroad switching yard west of the Mississippi lies just outside of my district in Roseville. I understand how big a role freight lines play in a community. When something goes wrong with a freight line, the community knows about it immediately. Freight carried by these rail lines must be transported safely and securely, particularly when it travels through densely populated urban areas.

As the freight rail industry continues to grow, it will need a well- trained and safe workforce. Addressing safety and training issues now will benefit all our communities and our national economy in future years.

This bill makes that investment and nearly doubles the number of FRA inspectors from 440 to 800.

Safety on our passenger rail lines is equally important. In fiscal year 2007, close to 26 million passengers chose to take trains. This is a 6.3 percent increase from the previous year. We can only expect these ridership numbers to increase as Americans seek travel alternatives in an attempt to turn away from congested highways and overstressed airlines.

In northern California, the Capital Corridor line has shown incredibl increases in ridership. In 1998, 544,000 passengers traveled on the Capital Corridor line. In 2007, the Capital Corridor ridership has almost tripled to almost 1.5 million passengers.

In 2007, throughout the entire State of California, 5 million passengers rode

on rail. Translated to vehicle miles, that is 500 million miles, which, simply put, means half a billion vehicle miles not on our highways and thus saving gas, reducing congestion and not polluting our air.

I say this because we need to protect and encourage this upward trend not only in California but across the Nation.

To do this, it is important that we invest in safety at a proportional rate to our ridership growth and freight growth. Our citizens must continue to have confidence in our rail infrastructure.

Finally, the demand on our rail infrastructure has outgrown our ability to keep our rail system safe. We must also ensure that our rail workers are getting the training they need, but also the rest between shifts.

According to the FRA, 40 percent of all train accidents are the result of human factors, and one in four of those accidents result from fatigue. These accidents are preventable, and it's time that we address the problem.

This bill makes the necessary changes to address employee fatigue. It increases the minimum rest period for employees from 8 to 10 hours and also phases in a limit of 10 hours of the amount of limbo time an employee can accrue each month.

In closing, this bill addresses the critical issues of worker fatigue, timely and thorough inspections, as well as enforcement of safety regulations. In short, this bill reinstates rail safety as a top priority for our communities, workforce, and the millions of people who ride our rail lines.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any more speakers.

Okay. I'm prepared to close after he's finished.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida and yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me first say that the earmark rule is not waived in this rule despite the claims of my colleagues. I urge them to read lines 6 and 7, that the rule specifically excludes the earmark rule from the waiver. Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important to our economy and the millions of Americans who travel on trains every year. This is the first time in well over a decade that Congress has taken a comprehensive look at our rail safety programs. During that time, the demand on our freight and passenger rail infrastructure has increased dramatically.

This bill addresses the critical issues of worker fatigue, timely and thorough inspections, as well as enforcement of safety regulations.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 724 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Shuster, for yielding me time, and also for managing the time today on this bill. Mr. Shuster is doing an outstanding job in leading the Republican side of the Rail Subcommittee, and I appreciate his fine efforts. Also, the great efforts of my colleague from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who chairs the subcommittee. And indeed, we are fortunate to have someone with Mr. Oberstar's leadership at our helm, chairing the committee after a long wait of some 32 years. I know this has been one of his priorities, rail safety, and I'm pleased that he has an opportunity to bring his bill to the floor today.

Now, of course, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my colleagues, we all want safe rail, we want safe infrastructure in our Nation, and it is important that we do everything possible to move safety forward and to make certain that freight rail, passenger rail, that our crossings, that those that work and are employed in this great industry are as safe as possible. And I think that that was the original intent.

Now, let me say that I have an agreement with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown and Mr. Shuster to support this bill on passage, and I intend to put my card in the reader and I will vote ``yes.'' That doesn't prohibit me from talking a little bit about the bill and the genesis of this bill.

Now, the intent is one thing about this legislation, and I think, again, it was safety and well-intended. But unfortunately, I think we started out with a bad bill.

The other side won the election, and there were some presents to be presented to labor. This doesn't have a red bow on it. But this started out as something I think that was sort of a gift to labor from the election. It is nice to approach legislation from that standpoint. But I think we have been able to take what I consider a very bad bill, that its intention was to actually codify some of the labor work rules relating to our rail industry. We have taken that bad legislation, and we have made it a little bit better. I think we still have a ways to go.

There are some good things in this. Mr. Oberstar pointed out that we did take the number one recommendation of the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board. That is the board that does investigate accidents. It is important that we take from them the best information they have possible and then translate that into legislative action so that accident doesn't occur. So, one, we have taken their recommendation, a positive train separation, and it is part of this bill. I am complimentary of that.

I think Mr. Graves, the gentleman from Missouri, a member of our committee and outstanding subcommittee Chair, I am sorry, ranking member, of the Public Buildings Subcommittee, his crossing prioritization for changing out dangerous crossings is an excellent provision. I think also that there is a good provision in this for acquiring some of the technical equipment. You have to understand, Mr. Shuster said there are very few accidents. In fact, the latest statistics that we have, there were 16 employee deaths in 2006. Only six of the deaths involved train accidents. So it is a very low number. That is compared to 25 of 33 employee deaths in 1996. So there is substantial improvement in that regard.

But if you look at some of the factors, and we have the factors that cause train accidents, you find the human factor is number one. It accounts for some 35, almost 36 percent of train accidents. This bill doesn't do enough, really, to deal with the human factors, in my opinion. Some of that involves training and some other things that we should be addressing.

The second is track defects. I had a chance, when I was going to college, I worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week on the rail to finance my college education, part of it, and I got to see some of what happens on the railroads firsthand. Track defects today are very difficult to detect just by some of the measures that we have, for example, in this bill.

This bill mandates that we have almost a doubling of track inspectors. Now, that is a nice gift also to the unions. We will get a few more union members. But is that what we need when the way to really detect track defects is with the latest technology and equipment? I did say the bill has authorization for acquisition of, I think, six additional track testing pieces of equipment. But if we really want to do that, we should be spending not just more money on bodies and inspectors and routine inspections, increasing those, kind of makework; we should be, first of all, making certain that we have a risk-based inspection system.

When I become chairman of Aviation, that was one of the things we did in Aviation, and I gave my blessings to, back in 1991. We have enjoyed the safest period of aviation safety, passenger aircraft safety, in the history of our Nation. I believe that is because it is a risk-based system. Rather than going out on a Monday, we are going to inspect this piece of equipment and then we schedule that for the next month on Monday and we go back and we do it and we add inspectors, we look at where the risks are and that is where we put our resources. It is not always how much we spend; it is how we spend it and how we apply those dollars.

Again, I have some questions about the approach in this bill. We do have an agreement. I am pleased to support this. My hope is that we can take this bill as we have done working with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster, and we can craft it into a better piece of legislation as it goes hopefully through conference, and I will support it.

In closing, there are some questions about the amendments. I will support the manager's amendment which I agreed to. The other three Members have asked me, and I say, you pick and choose. Mr. Oberstar and I did not make the decision on the three other amendments the Rules Committee brought forth, and you will have to assess them as to their own merits.

It is important that we take this legislation up. It is important that we move together in a bipartisan fashion. I have a little bit different set of priorities, again, on some of the issues that we have addressed in the legislation. But I have a fond hope that through a bipartisan future effort we can approve this legislation and continue to make certain that our rail employees, our rail passengers and those that cross the railroad tracks in our communities are safe.