U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–828 PDF 2018

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: RAIL STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES 

(115–27) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, 

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 4, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

WITNESSES 

Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to questions for the record from: 

Majority-side subcommittee ...................................................................... 55 

Minority-side subcommittee ..................................................................... 61 

Supplementary information to responses to questions for the record .. 63 

Charles ‘‘Wick’’ Moorman, Cochief Executive Officer, Amtrak: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Responses to questions for the record from: 

Majority-side subcommittee ...................................................................... 87 

Minority-side subcommittee ..................................................................... 88 

Linda Bauer Darr, President, American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Responses to questions for the record from the minority-side subcommittee ...................................................................................................... 95 

Thomas DeJoseph, Senior Advisor of Industry Relations, Loram Maintenance 

of Way, on behalf of the Railway Supply Institute: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Responses to questions for the record from the minority-side subcommittee ...................................................................................................... 105 

Larry I. Willis, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL–CIO: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Responses to questions for the record from the minority-side subcommittee ...................................................................................................... 118 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Letter of October 18, 2017, from James Pollard, Chief Executive Officer, 

OptaSense, to Hon. Jeff Denham, Chairman, and Hon. Michael E. Capuano, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous 

Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ................ 120 

Testimony of Ray B. Chambers, President, Association of Independent Passenger Rail Operators .......................................................................................... 122 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 29828.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 29828.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 29828.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 29828.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 29828.005
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: RAIL STAKEHOLDERS’ 

PERSPECTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Capuano is already complaining that we are 

a couple minutes behind, so I thought we had better get things rolling here. 

Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads, 

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. Our hearing today is ‘‘Building a 21st-Century Infrastructure for America: Rail Stakeholders’ 

Perspectives.’’ 

So, first of all, the committee will come to order. I would like to 

welcome all of you here. We are seeking your input as we put together our overall infrastructure package. Our goal is to rebuild, 

expand, and improve our current rail system, and make sure that 

it is a system that is competing or expanding as other areas of infrastructure are moving forward, as well. 

And in the process we want to do it very, very quickly. We want 

to make sure that we are unleashing capital so that we can actually do the big improvements quick, so that we are not talking 

about 10- or 20-year projects, we are expediting them to 2-year 

projects. 

We also want to build on our past successes. This subcommittee 

has had a number of successes in regulatory reform. We want to 

build upon that and make sure we are able to not only deliver 

these projects quickly, but also have the resources to do so, which 

is making sure that some of our current programs actually work 

and work well. 

One of those would be the RRIF loans, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing. We want to make sure that those 

loans are—or that capital is able to get out there into the market, 

and we are able to improve a number of our different rail systems. 

We are very proud of our rail system. This is a freight rail system that started in 1828. It is the best in the world. We—our imVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:10 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\2017\10-4-2~1\29828.TXT JEAN
2 

ports, exports—we are competitive because we are able to move 

goods across the entire country. But we can do better. 

We have also seen a big increase in passenger rail, and we want 

to make sure we continue to do the investments to make sure that 

passenger rail is on dedicated track, passenger rail is continuing to 

be more and more competitive, and we are continuing to put new 

technologies in place to create greater efficiencies so that more people are excited about riding on passenger rail. 

So, this is an opportunity for us to hear from you. We want to 

learn not only best practices, but, more importantly, we want to 

hear from you the regulatory changes that will help to expedite 

projects, as well as the funding scenarios behind those. This is your 

opportunity to give us the information, both in this hearing as well 

as after the hearing, as we do followup to make sure that we are 

included into the overall infrastructure package that we will be 

seeing in the next month or so. 

So, with that, welcome. We look forward to your testimony. I now 

turn it over to Mr. Capuano for as much time as he may consume. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I agree with everything the chairman just said. 

Thanks for coming. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. All right. Well, let me start with our panel. 

Mr. DeFazio? Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Since Mr. Capuano went on for so long, 

I will keep my remarks brief. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You know, I think this is our third hearing in this 

subcommittee, and we have also held hearings in other subcommittees on infrastructure initiatives, the trillion dollars that the President promised during the campaign, and yet we have seen nothing 

concrete—not to make a bad pun—from this administration or the 

White House. 

I started a clock, which is based on estimates of the Texas Transportation Institute, of the costs of congestion in America. And that 

clock, since the inauguration, has run up $110 billion of wasted 

time for individuals and businesses because of congestion. Yet we 

don’t have a proposal. 

The most substantive thing we have heard was from the President’s chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, who talked about socalled asset recycling. That is, bribing States to sell their assets to 

private interests who would then presumably toll them. And there 

are a lot of problems with that proposal. 

We also saw that they started talking about, well, we are going 

to put up $200 billion, source unknown, of Federal money. And the 

other $800 billion will come from the private sector and the States. 

Well, the problem is 24 States, including mine, have already acted 

to increase gas taxes or wholesale rack taxes and license fees and 

all sorts of other things, but they don’t have a willing Federal partner to help deal with their huge infrastructure needs. 

If we do want to incent States, it should also have a look-back 

provision to say, well, for States within the last number of years— 

2 years or so—you know, should also get the same sort of matching 

payments that Mr. Cohn was talking about. It wouldn’t—because 

there are quite a number of States that haven’t raised their user 

3 

fees or gas taxes in more than two decades. We don’t want to reward that sort of behavior, while penalizing those who actually felt 

a little pain and went out and did something about it. 

Obviously, rail definitely needs more focus. It is way more efficient than trucking. You know, I used to say it was the most efficient in moving freight until a gentleman who owns a large 

towboat company in my district, Dale Sause, reminded me that 

barges are more efficient. But it is a great way to be moving freight 

and facilitating our economy. And it is also a good way to move 

people, also very efficient. 

And so, you know, I was sad to see that the President basically 

proposed to kill Amtrak yet again. We have been through that debate. Congress has acted longer term on a minimal bill to keep Amtrak on life support, and we shouldn’t back away from that. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for convening this hearing and look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Now I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses. 

First, Mr. Ed Hamberger, president and chief executive officer of 

the Association of American Railroads; Mr. Wick Moorman, cochief 

executive officer of Amtrak; Ms. Linda Darr, president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association; Tom DeJoseph, 

senior advisor of industry relations for Loram Maintenance of Way; 

and Mr. Larry Willis, president, Transportation Trades Department, AFL–CIO. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Since your 

written testimony has been made part of the record today, the committee requests that you limit your summary to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Hamberger, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 

RAILROADS; CHARLES ‘‘WICK’’ MOORMAN, COCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK; LINDA BAUER DARR, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION; THOMAS DEJOSEPH, SENIOR ADVISOR OF INDUSTRY RELATIONS, LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY, ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY SUPPLY INSTITUTE; AND LARRY I. 

WILLIS, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL–CIO 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Capuano, Ranking Member DeFazio. On behalf of the members of 

the AAR, thank you for the opportunity to discuss railroad infrastructure with you today. 

If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would ask your indulgence to make 

two personal comments that might extend my comment beyond the 

5 minutes. This is the first opportunity I have had to appear before 

the committee since Mr. Duncan has announced his retirement, 

and I just wanted to thank him on the record for his many terms 

of leadership on transportation writ large, but certainly for his support of the rail industry in this country. 

So thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

[Applause.] 

4 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Secondly, this is the first opportunity I have 

had to appear with Mr. Willis since he has achieved his new position at the Transportation Trades Department. This hearing was 

scheduled 2 weeks ago, and was postponed because of two devastating hurricanes. And I just wanted to say thank you to Mr. 

Willis and his members for the work they did under impossible 

conditions to get ready for those hurricanes. 

And then, in the rebuilding that they did, the response that they 

did, the cooperation that management had, and the working relationship with labor got us up and running again within 7 to 10 

days following both of those hurricanes, many times waiting, unfortunately, for our customers themselves to be able to get up and 

running. And it is all due to the dedication, the courage, and hard 

work of our employees, and I just wanted that to be on the record, 

as well. 

Freight railroads operating in the United States are the best in 

the world, and provide tremendous benefits. They are safe and getting safer. In 2016 the train accident rate was the lowest ever. And 

they are efficient. A single train can carry the freight of several 

hundred trucks. And, on average, railroads are four times more 

fuel efficient than trucks. 

This means moving freight by rail helps our environment, cuts 

highway gridlock, and reduces the high cost of highway construction and maintenance. And, as you know, the demand for freight 

movement will only grow. DOT studies predict a 41-percent growth 

in freight demand by the year 2040. 

I respectfully suggest that it is in our Nation’s best interest that 

the benefits of freight rail continue to accrue. And that cannot happen unless the amount and quality of railroad infrastructure is up 

to the task. Railroads know this, which is why they have been 

spending more in recent years on their infrastructure and equipment than ever before: $135 billion, to be precise, from 2012 to 

2016, or $74 million a day. 

America’s freight railroads are privately owned and operated almost exclusively on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, 

and pay for themselves. When railroads invest in their networks, 

it means taxpayers don’t have to. 

As an aside, I would note that a reduction in the corporate tax 

would enable railroads to invest even more in their infrastructure, 

and would, just as importantly, allow our customers to compete on 

world markets. 

Thanks to their massive investments, freight rail infrastructure 

today is in its best overall condition ever. The challenge for railroads and policymakers is to ensure this continues. And you have 

a crucial role to play in this regard. 

First, you should resist calls to once again give Government regulators control over crucial areas of rail operations. Economic reregulation, in whatever form, would mean rail spending on infrastructure would shrink, the industry’s physical plant would deteriorate, and rail service would become slower and less reliable, outcomes that are in no one’s best interest. The 2015 STB [Surface 

Transportation Board] authorization bill you passed struck the 

right balance. 

5 

Second, promote more public-private partnerships under which 

Governments pay only for the public benefits of a project, and railroads pay for the benefits they receive. As a result of these partnerships, the universe of projects that can be undertaken to the benefit of all parties is significantly expanded. It is the so-called winwin for everyone involved. Of course I would be remiss not to point 

out that the Chicago CREATE [Chicago Region Environmental and 

Transportation Efficiency] program with which you are all familiar 

is our industry’s premier poster child for public-private partnerships. 

Grade crossings are also an important element of rail infrastructure that often involves a public-private cooperative approach 

through the Federal section 130 program. Section 130 provides 

Federal funds to States for installing new grade crossing warning 

devices and other purposes. The 2015 FAST Act [Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act] included dedicated funding for this 

vital program, and we urge you to continue to support it. 

Yet another variant of public-private partnerships, in my view, 

is the 45G short line tax credit, which is one of the more successful 

provisions in the tax code, and which I am sure you will hear more 

about in just a few minutes from my colleague, Ms. Darr. 

Third, continue efforts to reform outdated and unnecessary regulations. Railroads often face long permitting delays from Federal 

agencies, unnecessarily adding to the time and expense of getting 

infrastructure projects from the drawing board to completion. We 

applaud the recent efforts by Congress and the administration to 

address the permitting process, but more can and should be done. 

I want to emphasize, however, that this is not to adversely affect 

the quality of the reviews, but merely to make sure they get done 

in a timely way. 

Fourth, policymakers should address modal inequities. As I mentioned earlier, freight railroads operate overwhelmingly on infrastructure they own, build, maintain, and pay for themselves. By 

contrast, most other modes operate on infrastructure that is publicly funded. Unfortunately, public policies relating to the funding 

of other modes have become misaligned. 

Regarding highways specifically, the traditional user-pay model 

has been eroded as Highway Trust Fund revenues have not kept 

up with highway investment needs, and so have had to be supplemented with $143 billion of general taxpayer dollars either already 

paid or scheduled to be paid by 2020 under current law. 

We applaud this committee for being in the forefront in reaffirming the user pays policy, and suggest one method to do so would 

be by moving forward on a weight distance tax for trucks, a policy 

that is already in place in the State of Oregon. 

Finally, fund Amtrak so that its infrastructure can be improved 

to a state of good repair. Commuter railroads too need Federal support, specifically to cover the costs of implementing federally mandated Positive Train Control on their systems. 

Thank you for your attention, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

your allowing me to extend my time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. Moorman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

6 

Mr. MOORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to all 

the members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be here today 

on behalf of Amtrak’s employees, our board of directors, and my 

cochief executive officer and Amtrak’s president, Richard Anderson, 

who is looking forward to working with you. 

I think, as all of you know, Richard and I have both joined Amtrak to help position the company for the future, and I can tell you 

that, as a lifelong railroader who started out as a track engineer, 

I have a long-term interest in rail infrastructure. 

At Amtrak, as all of you know, we are focused on transforming 

the company by three basic things: first, strengthening our safety 

culture; second, improving our operational effectiveness and efficiency; and third, enhancing our customers’ experience by improving our product for reliability and its delivery. All of those elements 

depend upon a sound, modern, reliable infrastructure to meet the 

growing demand for rail passenger transportation in this country 

and the 21st century. 

Amtrak has been in business for 46 years now, and we have been 

the Nation’s sole intercity passenger rail operator. We are a proven 

industry leader, not only in the U.S. but around the world, for the 

delivery of rail passenger services, both in our own right and in 

partnership with our many diverse stakeholders. 

Over the past decade, we have achieved a succession of record 

years in ridership and revenue growth, driven primarily through 

our State services and the Northeast Corridor. All of these are important steps, but the major challenge that threatens our ability to 

continue to improve and grow is investment. 

Passenger rail, as you know, is a vital part of our Nation’s infrastructure, but capital funding is not keeping pace with the risks 

that face us from the standpoint of our infrastructure and fleet, 

both to maintain a state of good repair and to answer the demand 

for additional growth and capacity. And you need look no further 

for an example than the Northeast Corridor, where we have an extensive array of 100-plus-year-old assets that now handle 2,200 

trains a day, double the number from when Amtrak took over operations of the corridor in 1976. 

We are here today to endorse the development of a comprehensive infrastructure plan which features significant rail investments 

to support what I think is a generational investment in our Nation’s transportation infrastructure that is needed to keep the economy growing, our Nation competitive, and the quality of life in this 

country improving. We need the additional resources to carry that 

out. 

So, what are our primary capital needs for the upcoming century 

and the upcoming years? Broadly speaking, we think that there are 

four crucial elements of any infrastructure package that we need 

to move forward aggressively, and we can move forward aggressively if funding is available. 

First and foremost, rebuild and expand the Northeast Corridor. 

All of you, I think, are familiar with the Gateway Program, which 

includes a number of projects to replace critical assets, such as the 

Hudson River Tunnels, which were flooded by Hurricane Sandy, 

and which have a clock running. At some point they will not be 

able to be maintained reliably, thereby shutting off effective rail 

7 

transportation for the 200,000 commuters that move into and out 

of Manhattan from New Jersey every day. 

Second, we need to expand and improve on our State-supported 

corridors. That is the business that is growing, that is where we 

see the opportunity. These are short-distance, auto-competitive 

routes that carry almost half of our ridership and generate more 

than half a billion dollars in revenues. We have 21 partners in 19 

States. We all want to grow ridership and ticket revenue, but we 

can’t do that without strong financial participation from the Federal Government. 

Third, our long-distance services, they connect important city 

pairs and serve communities large and small across the Nation. We 

are in the process of relooking at our entire long-distance network 

to make sure it is effectively doing what it is supposed to do for 

the most number of citizens that we can. 

But a key issue to that, and to that service’s viability, is on-time 

performance over the freight railroads. And we need your help to 

make sure that those railroads have the dollars to invest in capacity, because quite often we run into capacity constraints, as well as 

helping us to work with the host to make sure that on-time performance of Amtrak trains is a priority for them. 

And then, finally, equipment replacement. We have a lot of aging 

equipment. We are engaging in self-help to fix that equipment, but 

it is old. We have new Acela sets, we have new locomotives, but 

we are going to need help over the next 10 years in replacing some 

of this equipment. 

If we can get all of this investment I have highlighted, we will 

continue to improve and modernize the passenger rail network. We 

have a new ready-to-build campaign with videos of our major infrastructure needs. We have shown, with this summer’s work in New 

York, that we are capable of doing these projects. 

There is a great opportunity, a historic opportunity out there, to 

invest in our passenger rail infrastructure, and all of us at Amtrak 

look forward to working with you to accomplish that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Moorman. 

Ms. Darr, you may proceed. 

Ms. DARR. Thank you, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member 

Capuano, and Ranking Member DeFazio, and all the other members of the committee. I am with the Short Line Railroad Association. We do a great job of serving our customers and arriving on 

time, so I will make it my goal to finish my testimony before the 

red light comes on. 

My name is Linda Darr, and I am president of the American 

Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. We are the national 

trade organization representing the Nation’s 600 class II and class 

III railroads, operating just under 50,000 miles of track, and that 

is nearly one-third of the national rail network. 

Short lines operate in 49 States and handle in origin or destination one out of every four railcars moving on the national rail network. Short lines share four defining characteristics. They are 

small businesses with combined annual revenues that equal less 

than the annual revenues of any one of the four largest class I railroads. The average short line employs 30 people or less. For large 

areas of the country, and particularly for small-town and rural 

8 

America, short line service is the only connection to the national 

railroad network. 

Because their task was to bring back to life undermaintained 

class I branch lines that were headed for abandonment, they invest, on average, from 25 to 33 percent of annual revenues in rehabilitating their infrastructure. This makes short line railroading 

one of the most capital-intensive industries in the country. Without 

infrastructure upgrades, short line customers face competitive disadvantages associated with the short line’s inability to handle the 

modern, heavier weight freight cars increasingly utilized by our 

class I connections. 

To help short lines sustain heavy capital investment, Congress 

enacted the short line rehabilitation tax credit in 2004, and has renewed it five times since. The credit expired at the end of 2016. 

This credit, known as 45G, has been a major factor in maximizing 

our infrastructure investment. And we believe making the credit 

permanent is the most important thing Congress can do to improve 

the infrastructure in the areas of the country that we serve. 

I know the tax legislation is not the purview of the committee, 

and I appreciate that there are other grant and loan programs that 

deal with infrastructure improvements. We support full funding for 

competitive programs such as TIGER and INFRA. INFRA has a 

10-percent set-aside for small projects like ours, and TIGER provides support to several short lines each year. But we have 600 

short lines that need help. 

We are hopeful that DOT will soon make funds available for the 

CRISI [Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements] 

program, which has a rural set-aside that will benefit short line 

railroads, as well. All of these programs are tools in the effort to 

rebuild all kinds of infrastructure, and some short lines will benefit 

from that. 

But the 45G credit is the most economical and effective way to 

maximize investment in our portion of the national rail system. 

And if it is not extended, we fear the growth of our industry will 

be stymied. As the committee that is the most knowledgeable when 

it comes to railroad infrastructure matters, I urge you to take that 

message to your colleagues whenever and however the subject of 

infrastructure is addressed in this Congress. 

We know and appreciate that your subcommittee has led on this 

effort: 28 of your 34 members are cosponsors of H.R. 721, the 

stand-alone bill that would make the credit permanent, including 

the chairmen and ranking members of both this subcommittee and 

the full T&I committee. Today the legislation has 247 cosponsors, 

the third most cosponsored House bill in this session of Congress. 

And thank you to every Member in the Chamber today, because all 

of you have cosponsored that bill. In the Senate we are the number-one tax bill when it comes to cosponsors: 55 total to date. 

My written testimony details the reasons that 45G has been so 

successful, and provides data that quantifies that success. The data 

shows that the credit has allowed short lines to spend more than 

they would have to maintain high levels of investment in the worst 

of recessionary times, and leverage significant amounts of private 

investment by our customers. This must be continued if we are to 

preserve rail access in rural and small-town America. We estimate 

9 

the total need to upgrade our track and bridges to $10 billion to 

enable us to handle the modern 286,000-pound railcars across our 

system. It costs roughly $500,000 to $1 million to rehabilitate a 

track mile, and north of $10 million per bridge, of which there are 

thousands. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and I 

am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Darr. 

Mr. DeJoseph, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. My name is Tom DeJoseph, and I 

am senior advisor of industry relations at Loram Maintenance of 

Way, and honorary chairman of the Railway Supply Institute. I am 

from Danbury, Connecticut, and I traveled down here yesterday on 

Amtrak. 

RSI is an international trade association representing more than 

260 companies involved in the manufacture of products and services in the freight car, tank car, locomotive, maintenance of way, 

communications and signaling, and passenger rail industries. Our 

members represent more than 756 rail supply locations in 44 

States and 281 congressional districts. Collectively, railroad suppliers contribute over $28 billion annually to the U.S. economy. 

Our members seek dedicated investment and infrastructure, sensible tax reform, and balanced economic regulation, as well as increased support and promotion of domestic manufacturing and 

American innovation. We are encouraged by the interest shown by 

the administration and the Congress to bring America’s transportation systems into the 21st century, and with the administration’s 

effort to scrutinize existing and proposed regulations to ensure that 

they do not unduly burden industry and economic growth. FRA’s 

CFR part 243 is a particularly onerous regulation. 

Investing in rail will bolster industry competitiveness, promote 

job creation, improve our Nation’s mobility, and have a profound, 

long-term effect, economic impact on the railway supply industry. 

To ensure that the rail sector can continue to provide good employment opportunities to American workers, public and private investment could relieve major bottlenecks and choke points that will increase track, tunnel, bridge, and station capacity across the passenger and freight rail system. It is high time for the Federal Government to provide predictable, dedicated, and meaningful funding 

for capital investment in our intercity passenger rail system, along 

with investment, to improve the efficient movement of freight 

through private-public partnerships. 

Furthermore, continued investment in rail safety, such as providing funds to the section 130 highway rail crossing safety program, and Operation Lifesaver is a proven way to save lives and 

should be supported. 

As suppliers, we are in a unique position to focus on both passenger and freight rail, and believe that there are several areas of 

new investment that would vastly improve the efficiency and productivity of our rail systems. The FAST Act authorized several rail 

programs, as well as important changes to certain loan programs, 

and we commend you for that. RSI urges that these programs be 

10 

funded at a level commensurate with the need, and urge that they 

receive the same priority as other FAST Act-funded modes. 

I should also note that RSI supports the 45G tax credit that expands freight rail capacity and helps short lines remain competitive. 

The Buy America program was designed to promote U.S. manufacturing and encourage new industry to help the domestic economy and create jobs for Americans. U.S. DOT should apply Buy 

America provisions strictly, consistently, and enforce the statute 

accordingly. Our suggestion is not to change the law, but to make 

sure that current laws are being enforced. 

I would also like to point out that there has been an increase in 

State-owned foreign involvement in U.S. passenger and freight rail 

market. It has the potential to change the entire dynamic of the 

multimillion-dollar business. Current American rail supply manufacturers are concerned that more State-owned enterprise involvement could lead to cut-throat pricing, resource dumping, and a reduction in American jobs. Allowing a foreign, State-backed entity 

to increase direct investment in our Nation’s critical infrastructure 

without appropriate review creates significant economic and national security concerns. 

It is important that Congress and the administration continue to 

enact and promulgate fair and balanced regulations that recognize 

the benefits of moving freight by rail, and not punish rail by enacting poorly thought-out public policy. 

Finally, I would like to address two regulations which RSI was 

intimately involved with through its Committee on Tank Cars: 

HM–251, the Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains. The RSI Committee on 

Tank Cars comprises six companies that build virtually all tank 

cars operating in North America and that own and provide for 

lease of almost 70 percent of railroad tank cars. The DOT–111 tank 

cars have essentially been removed from crude oil service, and 

members of the committee are committed to meeting the FAST Act 

deadlines. 

Secondly, prevailing wages required on Government-funded 

projects can increase labor costs by up to three times for the contractors that do this kind of work. That money ultimately gets 

billed back to the taxpayer. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Railway Supply Institute. We look forward to working with the subcommittee to help establish more balance in the Nation’s transportation system, and address the critical needs of the freight and passenger railroad industry and its suppliers. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. DeJoseph. 

Mr. Willis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WILLIS. Thank you, Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano, for inviting me to testify this morning. I also want 

to thank Ed Hamberger for those kind words about our front-line 

rail workers responding to the hurricanes and other emergencies. 

And I should note that our other unions are also likewise involved 

in various ways. 

By way of quick background, TTD consists of 32 unions in all 

modes and areas of transportation. For purposes of today’s hearing, 

11 

that includes workers on the freight rail side, Amtrak, and commuter rail. 

TTD believes that significant investments in freight and passenger rail must be included as part of any broad infrastructure 

bill considered by this committee. In 2015, as part of the FAST Act, 

Congress wisely chose to fund Amtrak and create and expand important freight transportation programs. As important and necessary as those investments were, they represent only the tip of the 

iceberg of what is needed to reverse decades of neglect inflicted on 

our transportation network. 

With strong support from the public, a promise from our President, and bipartisan interest in Congress, the time to end the lost 

generation of infrastructure investment, we believe, is now. Failing 

to act to date has idled millions of good jobs, stifled economic expansion, and worsened wage inequality. 

Voters wonder why the richest country in the world no longer 

places a premium on high-quality, modern transportation infrastructure, and too many working families have been left behind. 

When made strategically and paired with the right policies, the investments that we are discussing today can grow our middle class. 

These investments are linked with good jobs and economic 

growth because workers in rail specifically and transportation more 

broadly benefit from collective bargaining and generally high union 

density. We know that workers who belong to a union earn higher 

wages, enjoy better benefits, are safer on the job than their nonunion counterparts. As this committee considers transportation and 

rail investments, it would be a mistake—and one that we would 

vigorously oppose—to weaken the application of longstanding labor 

protections or to undermine collective bargaining. 

Strong and enforceable Buy America rules must also be included 

in any infrastructure package to maximize job creation in manufacturing, and to create a sustainable market for U.S. companies. It 

would make little sense to invest the kind of dollars that we are 

talking about to remake our infrastructure only to ship good manufacturing jobs overseas. 

For freight rail we would urge the committee to expand on the 

funding programs in the FAST Act, and to leverage the significant 

private financing the industry already provides, as Ed has outlined. 

The investment that rail carriers make in their networks and in 

their workers is premised on a balanced economic regulatory 

framework that we join the industry in supporting. 

We agree with and support the immediate and long-term needs 

of Amtrak, as outlined by Wick Moorman, including funding for 

Amtrak’s long-distance routes. And as part of its commitment to 

Amtrak and passenger rail more broadly, Congress must ensure 

funding to complete the Gateway Program. Failing to fund this 

critical project will cost thousands of construction and transportation jobs, and will cripple our Nation’s busiest rail corridor. 

The same is true in California, where high-speed rail is currently 

under construction. This project has the potential to transform the 

economy and mobility in California. Already the project has created 

1,400 good-paying construction jobs and generated nearly $4 billion 

in economic activity, and could pave the way for high-speed rail in 

other parts of the country. 

12 

Finally, any investment package must not be used as a vehicle 

to attack critical safety or labor regulations in the name of fasttracking infrastructure projects. We agree with the desire and the 

need to complete projects in a timely fashion, and support reasonable permitting and environmental reforms. But we do not believe 

that some of the safety and labor rules that have been talked about 

interfere in project delivery. We are also opposed to any effort to 

undermine the authority of the Federal Railroad Administration to 

issue needed safety rules to protect our members and the public. 

The most pressing challenge to enacting a broader infrastructure 

program is how to fund it. In addition to the needed investments 

for passenger and freight rail I discussed earlier, we believe that 

the Highway Trust Fund must be put on stable financial footing to 

meet our surface transportation needs. We were pleased earlier 

this year when 253 Members of the House from both parties took 

this same position and called on Congress to fix this problem as 

part of any rewrite of the U.S. tax code. 

And while there have been many ideas offered to shore up the 

trust fund—and we can support different approaches—we continue 

to believe that the best approach, the most efficient and straightforward, is to raise the gas tax and index it for inflation. This is 

a user fee that has not been raised since 1993, and has simply not 

kept up with construction costs or the needs of our surface transportation system. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Willis. 

Let me start with each of our panel members. What are some of 

the biggest rail infrastructure projects that you foresee on the horizon? And what are some of the ways that a Government can assist 

in their completion? 

Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Clearly, one of the ways, one of the biggest 

ones—and Mr. Lipinski is gone—is a joint public-private partnership. In Chicago we will be submitting an application for the 

INFRA grant on November 2nd. It is a partnership of Cook County, 

the city of Chicago, Amtrak, Metra, and the freight railroads to 

begin a rebuilding of what is called the 75th Street CIP running 

through Chicago. 

Secondly, you passed in the FAST Act requirements to improve 

the permitting of rail projects, and I would just draw your attention to the Virginia Avenue tunnel, which you can see from this 

building, which started out as a $140 million project. Seven years 

later it was finally opened on December 24th of 2016, cost $210 

million. And not one penny of Federal dollars involved, but it took 

61⁄2, 7 years to get it built. 

So that is the kind of delay and waste that is out there, and so 

we appreciate what you did in the FAST Act, and we are working 

with the administration. The Vice President just had an event earlier this week talking about cutting redtape, and we are certainly 

supportive of that, as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. And we will follow up 

after this hearing to hear about some of those specific ways that 

we can get rid of some of this redtape and expedite these projects. 

13 

Mr. Moorman, Amtrak? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Let me first say, in terms of redtape, there have 

been, actually, in Amtrak’s perspective, a few effective things done. 

We completed the environmental impact statement for the Hudson 

River Tunnels in about 2 years. The original estimate was 4 years. 

So there has been some streamlining done, but there is always 

more that can be done. 

From the Amtrak perspective, there are a lot of capital requirements. But clearly, the most pressing is the Gateway projects. The 

Hudson River Tunnels, the Portal North Bridge, eventually a series 

of projects that leads to the expansion of Penn Station, these are 

assets that were open for business in 1910. They are a little past 

their sell-by date. 

But in addition to those Gateway projects, we have other significant projects on the corridor: The B&P Tunnel south of Baltimore, 

which was opened, I believe, in 1874; the Susquehanna River 

Bridge, a series of bridges. And in terms of the Federal Government’s involvement, particularly in Gateway, it is clearly recognized by all concerned that the States have to play a major role in 

funding that, as well. But we can’t do it without Federal involvement. 

There is possibly a place for some user fees. I, as you know, come 

from the private world and believe in private capital. But there 

needs to be a formula derived at which includes both State and 

Federal funding to get that done because, unlike a lot of assets 

which are suitable for public-private partnership, we just can’t toll 

in the same way that the highways can. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Darr? 

Ms. DARR. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the projects aren’t 

large and specific. Our projects are truly many. There are thousands in the queue across the country for our short line railroads, 

railroads that are waiting for 45G to be extended. It has been proven that 45G has spurred investment. As a matter of fact, $4 billion 

has been invested since the tax credit was enacted in 2004. 

Our challenge is to rehab abandoned track, so that is usually 

what we are going to be spending that money on. And our goal is 

to become able to handle 286,000-pound railcars across the network, to be better partners with our class I railroads, and to be 

able to work more closely with the shippers and help to meet their 

needs in taking freight off of the highway and putting it on the 

rails. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And my time is about to expire, so I 

will pass it on to Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Pass it on to Mr. Sires. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Sires, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to 

our panel for being here today. 

You know, I come to these meetings, and every time I come all 

the panelists agree that we have to do something about infrastructure, especially in the rail. I have been working on rail for a long 

time. From light rail to passenger rail to freight rail, it has always 

been my opinion that that is the way to go, in terms of alleviating 

traffic, especially in the region I represent. 

14 

I understand that the private sector has a role. I understand that 

the State has a role. But I think that the Federal Government certainly has to have a bigger role, because without the support of the 

Federal Government, I don’t think these projects can be done. 

You know, I travel the Northeast Corridor every week. It is the 

busiest passenger line in the country. And yet it is in need of so 

much infrastructure. And it is frustrating to me to come here and 

listen every week, or every month, when we have one of these hearings, and people tell me the same thing, and we don’t seem to do 

anything. 

I look at the budget, 28 percent of the budget has been cut for 

the Northeast Corridor. I mean this is the busiest line, passenger 

line, in the country. 

I want to talk about the Portal Bridge. We have a guy with a 

sledgehammer that, every time the bridge closes and opens, we 

have to have a guy out there to sledge the track back in line. And 

obviously, you know, the tunnels. I predict that if one of those tunnels goes because it was damaged by Sandy, the country is going 

to suffer, the economy of the country is going to suffer. It is not 

just my district, it is the entire country. 

And those are States that send money to the Federal Government. We are not takers. New York, New Jersey, we send a lot of 

money to the Federal Government. We are not one of these States 

that says, hey, give me money. So we have to somehow find a formula to really work this issue out. I am sorry I am a little frustrated because I have been on this committee and I hear it all the 

time, and everybody agrees: We need infrastructure work. 

You know, our country is—we are the greatest country in the 

world, and we have the lousiest rail in the world. And I travel to 

some of these countries and they have beautiful stuff and it works. 

But does anyone here believe that the private sector is the sole answer to this? If you do, please tell me because I don’t believe it. 

Mr. Hamberger? I know you pour a lot of money into your business to fixing up the rails, but—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. You are talking about a much broader topic 

than just the investment in freight rail. What you are talking 

about clearly goes beyond what the private sector at this point is 

prepared to do. Certainly our members invest to respond to the 

marketplace and provide freight capacity where the market says it 

is needed. But obviously—I think Mr. Moorman’s needs go far beyond what the private sector can do, and I think that you are talking about investment that is needed beyond what the freight rails 

can put into our system. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Moorman? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more. You know, 

the simple fact is that the Northeast accounts for about 20 percent 

of the Nation’s GDP. And the Northeast Corridor is the vital link 

in this part of the country, particularly for business. 

If you look at the Acela ridership, 60-plus percent of the ridership is business, the highest percentage of business ridership on 

any rail corridor in the world. So it is absolutely essential for the 

economic vitality of the region. And if we don’t invest in these critical, huge infrastructure projects—and it will take Federal investment—at some point the system runs out. 

15 

With what we are doing today, we can do a lot of work on state 

of good repair, we can improve the way we spend money, we can 

become much better project executors. We are already, I think, a 

long way down that path. But I agree completely it is going to take 

a lot of Federal investment, and the States and the Federal Government need to figure out the formula and get the work started. 

I will give you a great example. The environmental impact statement for the Hudson River Tunnels will be done first quarter of 

2018. We have been working on that process, but once we get that 

statement we are waiting for money. It is just that simple. 

Mr. SIRES. You know, we had a meeting with the President. It 

was very hopeful. And yet I look at these budgets, and they slashed 

the budgets. So I mean it is like one thing is said, and then there 

is another action that really just destroyed what he said. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

And first of all, Mr. Hamberger, thank you for your kind comments about my work on this committee. After the 1994 elections, 

we had 10 openings on the Ways and Means Committee. Speaker 

Gingrich offered me one of those openings, but I was going to get 

to chair the Aviation Subcommittee at that point and I decided— 

and I think surprised many people—but I chose to stay on this 

committee, and I have never regretted that. But you have been a 

very effective leader for the railroad industry during most of the 

time that I have been here, so I have great respect for you, as well. 

Let me ask you this, though. I chaired a panel, a special panel 

in the last Congress on public-private partnerships. And one of our 

many hearings was held on Wall Street, where we had several of 

the top leaders of some of the big Wall Street firms tell us that 

there was a lot of money out there that companies wanted to invest 

in public-private infrastructure projects. Yet I noticed a few days 

ago that President Trump expressed some great skepticism about 

public-private partnerships. 

Did you see that? And have you or will you tell your story? You 

sounded very favorable towards public-private partnerships in your 

testimony. So have you expressed that, or will you express that to 

the people at the White House? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. Yes, indeed. That was part of—and I 

should have mentioned it specifically, Mr. Sires, of—obviously, that 

is evidence of the fact that we believe that there needs to be a role 

for Government. I mentioned in my testimony this morning publicprivate partnerships, it was part of our material that we gave to 

the transition team. 

I have to admit, somewhat surprised by reading that because I 

know that Secretary Chao, Gary Cohn, and the folks who work for 

him have been talking both publicly and privately about the need 

to encourage private-sector investment in infrastructure. And I 

think that that was, at least some of the early plans I saw, one of 

the ways that they were going to get to the trillion dollars was by 

encouraging private-sector investment. 

But I think—to go back to Mr. Sires’s point—it will take both the 

private sector and the public sector stepping up. 

16 

Mr. DUNCAN. Also, on another topic, you mentioned that the industry is one of the safest in the country, and is becoming safer. 

You know that some of us had some doubts about whether the 

Positive Train Control was really worth the amount of money that 

was going to be spent on it, but we crossed that bridge a long time 

ago. 

Would you tell us where we stand on that? Now, how much have 

your members spent on that so far? And how close to completion 

is all that? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I appreciate that question. We have spent, as of last year, the end of last year, a little over $7 billion. 

It will be another $1 billion this year. By the time it is fully implemented, it will be around $10 billion. 

And you are right, we have crossed that bridge, we are moving 

forward aggressively. We will meet the deadlines in the FAST Act. 

That is to say we will be 100 percent installed by the end of 2018, 

and at least 51 percent operational. That then, under the law, allows for a potential additional 2 years of testing and validation to 

make sure it works. If you are going to rely on a safety system, you 

want it to be working. 

In 2015, when Congress saw fit to extend the deadline, we were 

at about a 70-percent success rate. That is to say, put in the negative, the system wasn’t working 30 percent of the time. And, you 

know, you don’t want to get on an airplane when the air traffic control system is not working 30 percent of the time. I am pleased to 

say we are now at a success rate up in the high eighties, but that 

is still not there. We are continuing to run into technical problems. 

Someone said to me the other day if there is a solar flare and 

it interferes with the communication, how do you deal with that? 

And so we are dealing with all sorts of challenges as we try to install PTC on a 60,000-mile network, but we will have it installed, 

we will meet at least 51 percent operational. And I am confident 

we will meet the 2020 deadline, as well. 

Mr. DUNCAN. My time has run out by I do want to tell Mr. 

Moorman that I am bringing one of my grandsons up to go to the 

Navy-Air Force football game Saturday, and then I, just before I 

came here, bought two tickets for me and him on Amtrak to go to 

Philadelphia to see the Eagles game on Sunday. 

But I do want to say that I am very pleased that you mentioned 

that we had allowed an expedited environmental process for the 

Hudson Tunnel Project because I have sat here for all these years, 

and we used to just hear that every infrastructure project of every 

type took three times as long and cost three times as much because 

of all the environmental rules and regulations and redtape. And finally we are making, I think, a little bit of progress on that. But 

I think you did save some time and money, as well, because of that 

expedited process. 

Mr. MOORMAN. That is correct. And I think it is a very positive 

thing for the future. And I will just take 2 seconds also to congratulate you on your retirement and thank you for your friendship and 

support of our industry, and certainly—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you. 

Mr. MOORMAN [continuing]. In both the companies that I have 

had the good fortune to be with. 

17 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Mrs. Bustos, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also our ranking 

member. And thanks to all of you for being here with us today. 

About 21⁄2 years ago we had a train derailment in my congressional district in a town called Galena, Illinois, which is in the far 

northwest corner of the State of Illinois. And these were tank cars 

that had left North Dakota filled with the Bakken crude. When 

they hit the Galena area there was a derailment that happened to 

have been right along a slew that led to the Mississippi River, so 

potentially a terrible situation. The BNSF Railway handled it very 

well. Our first responders handled it well. And everything is back 

in a good place again. 

But it is a reminder that folks in my area are curious about. In 

the highway bill there were the requirements that the tankers carrying flammable liquids, especially something like crude oil, that 

those be upgraded, and especially those that are the oldest. I think 

there is a deadline, the fast-approaching deadline of January 1st, 

for the oldest and maybe the more dangerous tank cars. 

So I think this question would be for Mr. Hamberger or Ms. Darr 

and Mr. DeJoseph about what is happening in the industry as far 

as upgrading those. And maybe give us a progress report on that 

and what you see ahead, as far as meeting those deadlines that are 

coming up. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Let me jump in, I guess. Thank you for that 

question. This is a good news story. The DOT–111, as the old tank 

car was referred to—in 2013 there were 21,340 of those tank cars 

moving crude oil. In the first quarter and second quarter of this 

year there are exactly 156. So more than a 99-percent decline in 

the DOT–111s moving crude oil. And so, given that, I am quite certain that we will meet the January 1, 2018, statutory deadline to 

have those tank cars out of service moving crude oil. 

Ms. DARR. I should probably defer in large part to Ed and to my 

colleague, Mr. DeJoseph, on the freight rail side and on the supplier side. But I will say, from the short line perspective, that we 

have been very pleased with progress that has been made over the 

last 3 years with the establishment of our Short Line Safety Institute that is specifically focused on raising up the safety culture of 

our industry with a particular focus on those railroads that do 

move hazmat. 

And we recently received a $500,000 grant from FMCSA to create a hazmat training academy. We are very excited about using 

that to make sure that everyone in our industry is, you know, at 

a level of knowledge and compliance that they need to be to operate 

safely when they move hazmat on the network. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you. 

Mr. DeJoseph, is there anything that you wanted to add to that? 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. I would go along with Mr. Hamberger, basically 

saying that the DOT–111 cars have essentially been removed from 

crude oil service. There are 16,000 new DOT–117s, and—I can’t 

quite read this note—6,000 retrofitted to meet the new standard. 

So we will meet the FAST requirements from the supply industry. 

18 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK. All right, thank you. 

Shifting gears to Amtrak for a second, Mr. Moorman, you had 

mentioned that there is an opportunity for expanding passenger 

rail service in your opening comments. With the help of a Federal 

grant, the Illinois Department of Transportation is working on upgrades that are necessary to return passenger rail for a Chicagoto-Moline route. Moline is in my congressional district, so something that our people back home are anxiously waiting for. 

So in the FAST Act, Congress created the restoration and enhancement grant program to help initiate, restore, and enhance 

passenger rail service. Can you talk a little bit about how the program can ensure that investments that go into infrastructure upgrades for passenger rail translate into successful service for a 

route like I just mentioned? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, I think it is an essential part of restoring 

routes like that, and something, obviously, that we are very interested in, because we believe that the real growth opportunity for 

passenger rail are corridors like that to Moline. That is where you 

have a lot of ridership that wants to go into a congested area, and 

passenger rail just makes all the sense in the world. 

So it is incumbent upon Amtrak to work with the State authorities to make sure that the service is well thought-out, that we have 

the right equipment, and that our projections are such that the 

State has confidence that the service can be provided on the economic terms. But given the assistance that you have talked 

about—and I think there is even more that can be done—I would 

tell you that I think State-supported corridors like that are really 

where passenger rail needs to go in the future. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. That is good to hear. 

All right, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mrs. Bustos. 

Mr. Faso, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FASO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel 

being here today. 

Mr. Moorman, I am wondering if you could update the committee 

on the work that Amtrak performed in Penn Station this past summer and what other improvements you are contemplating in that 

regard. As you know, I live on the Empire State Corridor, and the 

service in and out of Penn Station is vitally important to people in 

upstate New York, as well as people in the general metropolitan 

area. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Thank you for the question. As you know, it was 

billed by those in the media and some politicians as, prospectively, 

the summer of hell. I am happy to say that, thanks to our execution and really great work by a lot of the folks that Mr. Willis represents down there, it turned out to be no more than the summer 

of mild inconvenience. 

And it really set the stage, I think, for us to do at Amtrak—and 

particularly in the Penn Station area—a lot of work that needs to 

be done, and to do it in a thoughtful way, working with our partners, but in a way, quite frankly, that will at times impact the 

service into the station. Not in the same way that this summer did, 

but we will need to take tracks out of service for a longer period 

of time. 

19 

We have a schedule which actually goes through next summer. 

We are working with New Jersey Transit, Long Island Rail Road, 

and now Metro-North, because, as you know, to accommodate the 

work this past summer we took about half of the—all of the peak 

trains into Grand Central. And as we look at work to be done at 

particular parts of Penn, we are going to be starting conversations 

with Metro-North to do that again at times. 

So I think it was a great project for us. I think it established that 

we can do that kind of work. And it set the stage for us to do a 

lot more important work up there. 

Mr. WILLIS. Let me just add quickly. You know, there were some 

proposals that we needed to sell off or privatize Penn Station because Amtrak and its workforce couldn’t handle that. You know, I 

think, as Wick said, that turned out not to be the case. I think our 

members worked very directly and closely with Amtrak and their 

management team to get that project done. 

And you know, again, there was a live debate leading up to the 

FAST Act of whether the solution for Amtrak was to privatize the 

carrier or defund it. Those debates were considered and rejected. 

And we hope that as an infrastructure package is considered by 

this committee, that we don’t need to relitigate those type of issues. 

And I think Amtrak has built up some trust in this area that they 

can handle this kind of work and really be the type of carrier that 

we need, if given the funding and support. 

So I think it was successful up there in Penn Station and can 

be a real model and a template for other projects, going forward. 

Mr. FASO. Thank you. And, Mr. Willis, I agree with what you are 

saying about the way the workforce responded. It was truly excellent. And I congratulate you and Mr. Moorman for that effort. And 

Mr. Moorman knows I have some particular interest, as well, on 

that Empire State Corridor, so I know—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. I know that well. 

Mr. FASO. He is paying close attention to that. 

Mr. DeJoseph, I know often we have testimony that is somewhat 

sanitized in a way to ameliorate or smooth over some difficult 

issues. But one in particular caught my eye when I read your testimony. You spoke about these sticky issues of the Buy America provisions. And I am wondering if you could perhaps elaborate a little 

more in terms of the stickiness, so that we can fully understand 

what you are getting at when you mention that. 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. Without getting too far indepth, there is definitely concern from a lot of our members about foreign involvement. The Buy America provisions must be adhered to and strictly 

enforced. We are very concerned about foreign investment in the 

United States, where we have companies that are bidding on new 

production projects at upwards of 30 percent of anyone else that 

has been in business in the United States since the 1980s. 

So I think that we, our membership, wants to ensure that all of 

the Buy America provisions are strictly enforced. There are continuing questions about raw materials that are being brought in 

that would constitute in some areas dumping. 

Mr. FASO. Thank you. Mr. DeJoseph, my time has expired, but 

perhaps you could provide greater detail to the committee in writing on this issue expressing your concerns in that regard. 

20 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. Yes, we will. 

[Mr. DeJoseph elaborates on Buy America provisions on pages 105–106 in 

response to a post-hearing question for the record.] 

Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Faso. 

Mr. Lipinski, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hamberger mentioned a couple of times already CREATE, 

the rail modernization program in the Chicago region which—we 

talk about—the Gateway has been brought up also, but I think it 

is very important that people understand how important CREATE 

is for freight traffic for the entire country, in addition to Amtrak 

and commuter rail. 

We have moved along well, although more slowly than we would 

like in getting CREATE projects done. I can’t pass up the opportunity again to talk about grade separations. Those are lagging far 

behind, and those are very important. I would like to see more 

funding, Federal funding, and railroad funding on grade separations. 

But right now the big project that we are looking at is 75th 

Street. And I was very happy to hear you say earlier, Mr. Hamberger—when I had stepped out, unfortunately—that the railroads 

are in for the application for an INFRA grant. Is this going to be 

similar to the application—do you believe it would be similar to 

what was put in at the end of last year? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. Each of the partners has reaffirmed 

their commitment exactly in the same proportion as last year. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. That is great to hear. I think this fits very well in 

exactly what the administration is talking about when it comes to 

infrastructure in general, the private capital going in, also the 

State, Cook County, city of Chicago, I think Metra and Amtrak also 

on board. So this is exactly the type of project that should be funded if the administration follows through on what they have said 

they would like to see. So very happy that the railroads are on 

board on this. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. And it actually refers back to the question Mr. Duncan asked about the involvement of the private sector, 

and one of the main metrics that the DOT has announced in analyzing the INFRA grants is what is the private sector involvement. 

So I think that that indicates at least that the Department—that 

they are committed to the public-private partners approach. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Very good. The other question I wanted to ask Ms. 

Darr, I want to talk about the RRIF loan program, which, unfortunately, has been undersubscribed. And part of that is a result of 

the confusing loan repayment policies, the issue of the credit risk 

premium that the RRIF loan recipients are required to pay. 

You know, DOT has not repaid nearly $76 million in CRPs that 

they have collected to date. I want to know what would the impact 

be if those CRPs were paid back, in terms of infrastructure that 

would be able to be financed with that. 

Ms. DARR. Thank you for your question, and I think that that 

would be an excellent outcome, is if we could get DOT to pay back 

21 

the credit risk premium. And going forward, I think that also needs 

to be considered. 

The RRIF program really stands out to our industry as a massive 

wasted opportunity at this point. Maybe two or three loans have 

been processed per year, and only a few of those have gone to the 

short lines. There is a number of reasons for that. One of them is 

the credit risk premium. But additionally, it is just truly too complex and costly for our small businesses. There is a high cost to the 

transaction for financial advisors and legal advisors that runs in 

the neighborhood of up to $500,000. 

You know, we believe the solution is to fund the credit risk premium to help cover application costs and to do whatever you can 

to speed up the process, because we can’t wait the year or more 

that it takes for those loans to be improved to get started on some 

of these projects. Again, that is why 45G is more of an immediate 

solution for us. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I think this, again, fits in with what the administration has been talking about, and I am hopeful that they take a 

look at the RRIF program and the credit risk premium, and that 

we can get the RRIF program really working, because I think it 

can be highly valuable, and is very important for short line railroads. 

So that—I would yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. Weber, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A little bit of a different 

question for the panel, if you will. 

Have you all been watching the discussion about tax reform? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Just one out of five? That is not very encouraging. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WEBER. OK, I see some nodding heads. 

Did you all take a position on the BAT tax? I will start with you, 

Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We did not take a formal position. Some of our 

members did oppose the BAT tax, and we are founding members 

of an organization called RATE. It is a great acronym: Reforming 

America’s Taxes Equitably, I believe it stands for. 

And we are a very high effective tax rate industry, right around 

33 percent, so we are very open to getting that rate down. And if 

that means interest deductions aren’t deductible, or if that means 

that accelerated depreciation goes away, if we can get it down to 

what the Big 6 are talking about, in the 20-percent range, we think 

that that would not only spur investment by us, but would really 

make our customers more competitive. 

Mr. WEBER. So you are against the 15-percent range. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We would love to see 15 percent, but I see 20 

percent on the table, so we are good at 20 percent. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Moorman? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, I have certainly been following it from a 

personal standpoint, but Amtrak is not a taxpayer. 

Mr. WEBER. That is right. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Yes. And we are striving to get it to that point, 

where we can, but right now it is not a corporate issue for us. 

22 

Mr. WEBER. OK. And Ms. Darr? 

Ms. DARR. We are, of course, supportive of comprehensive tax reform, and we are hopeful that the Chamber will be able to get that 

done. 45G, as you know, is our main focus when it comes to a tax 

program. That is certainly our priority. And when it comes to lowering the corporate tax rate, again, we are supportive. But our 

businesses are not profitable enough that we believe it would have 

the same impact as 45G would. 

Mr. WEBER. So do you have a white paper? Can you get my staff 

a background on 45G for me, please? 

Ms. DARR. I would be thrilled to do that. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. 

Ms. DARR. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. DeJoseph? 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. The Railway Supply Institute did not take a position on the tax program. I can speak from my own company’s point 

of view that we would support 20 percent, 15 percent—— 

Mr. WEBER. Nothing on BAT, you didn’t engage in the BAT conversation? 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. That is correct. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. And Mr. Willis, I take it that would be the same 

for you all? 

Mr. WILLIS. We have not taken a position. I think some of our 

unions are going to play in that space and the broader AFL–CIO 

definitely will. But we have not been engaged in that. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. I am going to ask you kind of a broader question. I will start with you, Mr. Hamberger, again. What is the 

worst thing Congress could do to you all in this coming session? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I know I shouldn’t say this, but it does remind 

me of a Will Rogers line. But I won’t say it. 

Mr. WEBER. We will talk offline. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WEBER. We will think about that. 

Mr. Moorman, I will jump over—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. For us the biggest issue continues to be the economic regulation of the industry. In 2015 you passed the STB reauthorization which continued the balanced economic regulatory system that is there. 

The worst thing you could do, because everything we do is private sector, where you have to earn capital to reinvest it, so if you 

did anything that would in any way change that balance to send 

a signal to the railroads to disinvest, that would be the worst thing 

you could do. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Moorman? 

Mr. MOORMAN. I only say this because I was in the freight industry for a long, long time. I thought Ed was struggling because he 

was going to say that Congress would make the freight railroads 

run Amtrak trains on time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WEBER. We are talking about in realms of possibility. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOORMAN. Not fund the capital that we need to keep the rail 

infrastructure, and particularly the Northeast Corridor, moving 

23 

ahead. That is absolutely critical, I think, not only for Amtrak but 

for the country. 

Mr. WEBER. I think Mr. Sires had that conversation. 

Ms. Darr? 

Ms. DARR. You probably can guess what my answer is going to 

be. But if 45G was not extended, that would be an enormous problem for our industry. So we urge you to support 45G. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. DeJoseph? 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. I would think any attempt to do any form of reregulation would be the worst thing that Congress could do at this 

time. 

Mr. WEBER. Especially without your input. 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. Correct. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Willis? 

Mr. WILLIS. Well, I will limit my comments to what is in front 

of this committee, because there is a lot of things that could happen to labor and the unions that I represent. 

But, you know, I think devolving the Federal role back to the 

States would be a real mistake. We have got real funding challenges. The States need to be partners. But to devolve it back to 

the States and—as a way that—you know, we just can’t figure out 

how to fund it. Or over-reliance on private financing. There is a 

role for private financing, but to turn it over to those two entities, 

we think, would be a real step backward from positive moves made 

in the FAST Act. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, and the Constitution says something about 

interstate commerce. I am not sure, but I think that is what you 

are getting to. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The corporate tax 

issue is one that we need to be very, very careful about. I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. 

The evidence over the last 15 years indicates that those companies that have successfully reduced their corporate tax rate into the 

1-digit and maybe the 10-percent rate have done so—the result of 

having done so is to lay off thousands or tens of thousands of 

American workers, and to use that reduced tax rate, or the revenue 

from the reduced tax rate, to buy back stock and corporate pay, 

corporate executive pay. 

So we need to be very, very careful as we approach this. Clearly, 

a lower tax rate for corporations could be, properly structured, a 

significant economic boon. But presently, if you take a look, AT&T, 

for example, GE, and a couple of other major corporations—including Apple—that have very, very low tax rates are not creating jobs 

in America. So just a heads up on that. 

Also, the Buy America provisions, all of you talked about that, 

extremely important. If you want to build jobs in America, make 

it in America. The President talks about it. Good for him. Good for 

us, if we actually cause it to happen. So be careful. All of you gentlemen discussed this. 

Also there is a horrible disconnect and a very, very serious problem and a disconnect between the rhetoric—in this case, infrastrucVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:10 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\2017\10-4-2~1\29828.TXT JEAN
24 

ture, building infrastructure, funding infrastructure—and what is 

actually happening in Congress. 

This week we will pass a budget—well, some of us will vote for 

a budget, and it will pass—that has the potential of significantly 

reducing by $2.5 trillion, maybe as much as $5 trillion, revenue for 

the Federal Government. If we are going to build infrastructure, 

these very extraordinary revenue reductions that are embedded in 

the budget that will pass the House this week will not happen. 

There will be no money for infrastructure investment. 

So let’s be very, very careful here as we talk about tax reform, 

as we talk about budgets, and all of the witnesses today—and this 

is not the first panel that has been in this room saying we need 

more money. There is a serious, serious disconnect between our political statements of building infrastructure and the reality of what 

the tax reform and the budget that will pass the House this week 

will do to funding availability. 

Secondly, it has been suggested that we increase the excise tax 

on fuel. Good idea. However, in today’s press, General Motors, 

within the next decade, will be out of the internal combustion engine business. So tell me how that works. We need to move beyond 

the excise tax on fuel, as we raise revenue fees from the motoring 

public, whether that is commercial or private automobile. We simply cannot rely upon the excise tax on fuel as a funding source for 

the highway programs. 

Also note that about 30 percent, 25 percent of the total highway 

funding is general fund, which is scheduled to be reduced in the 

tax reform programs. 

So my point here—and this is not to, I guess, sort of preaching, 

hopefully to the sinners, or not to the choir—but the reality is that 

there is a very serious disconnect between what we talk about 

doing in this infrastructure committee and what we are doing in 

the tax committees. They simply do not work together. 

My final point is Buy America is extremely important. Make it 

in American is extremely important, the testimony we have received today about ways in which foreign, State-owned companies 

can dramatically alter the ability of American companies and 

American workers. Also, the issue of waivers and inconsistencies, 

all of which you have talked about in one way or another. 

I am particularly interested, Mr. Moorman, in your point, which 

you say in your testimony about the Buy America. I am not sure 

that you like it or dislike it, but I will tell you you must have it. 

The Siemens operation in Sacramento is a marvelous example of 

where some $700 million was spent on Amtrak locomotives, all 100 

percent American made. I assume that is continuing to be your position. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Perfect. 

Mr. MOORMAN. We certainly support Buy American. And in addition to the Siemens locomotives, we have a commitment for over $2 

billion for new Acela train sets, all of which will be built by Alstom 

in upstate New York, so—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Which raises the question of the SiemensAlstom merger and what effect that might have on American employees. 

25 

Mr. Chairman, I am 30 seconds over time. Please forgive me. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, could I answer one of Mr. 

Garamendi’s questions? That is how—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger, you are recognized for a brief response. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, sir. How to fund the Highway Trust 

Fund, given the technology that is coming down the road. 

I mentioned in my opening statement—I don’t think you were in 

the room—we recommend a weight-distance tax which is already in 

existence in your neighbor to the north, in Oregon, which I think 

is fair, because it is based upon what is the damage that a particular vehicle does to the infrastructure, and measured by the vehicle miles traveled. So that would be one way to get—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. But the chairman and I do not travel in the 

right-hand lane of Interstate 5 in California for the very reason of 

destruction of the road bed. By passenger cars? I doubt it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. Sanford, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman. Let me follow up just—I 

guess with a little bit more in the way of questioning to you, Mr. 

Moorman. 

The operating losses within Amtrak have been perennial, so I 

think you are, if I am not mistaken, down to, it looks like, 227, 

which is a record low. I guess last year it was 305. But there has 

been a longstanding run of operating losses on that front. If you 

were to pick the three biggest efficiencies, money savers, what 

would they be, in terms of correcting that sort of perennial problem 

we have going right now? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Let me first say that the way that I and my coCEO view Amtrak is we are a company, we are a corporation. We 

are effectively a Government contractor. And over the past 40-some 

years—— 

Mr. SANFORD. But in fairness, if you were a business, if—you 

would be out of business on that basis. I mean you are subsidized 

by Federal Government, et cetera. 

Mr. MOORMAN. And what I was going to say is we effectively are 

a Government contractor, and we carry out the wishes of the U.S. 

Government in terms of passenger rail transportation. And the 

Government’s position over the past 46 years is that it provides an 

essential service. And someone needs to do it, and that is Amtrak. 

But it is inherently—and I have said this many times before in 

many forums—passenger rail around the world is not a particularly good business model. So our job is to execute the intentions 

of the Government—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Understood. But back to what would your efficiencies be. If you were to look for three of them, what would they 

be? 

Mr. MOORMAN. So, therefore, the first thing that we need to look 

at is our route structure, our fare structure, how do we better manage yield, how do we put services in places where people want to 

use them, and how to buy them, and that is—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I got it, but again—— 

26 

Mr. MOORMAN. But—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I only got a couple minutes, I want to get specifically—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. OK, all right. 

Mr. SANFORD. So what would you do? I mean those are generalities, I understand that. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well—— 

Mr. SANFORD. What would you do? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well—— 

Mr. SANFORD. If you raise fare structure you are probably going 

to lose more money and lose ridership, right? So that is probably 

off the table. 

Mr. MOORMAN. We are not sure. But let me answer that and say 

we are not sure of that, because Amtrak has not really done the 

kind of job and look at fare structure, looking at revenue management, looking at yield management. We actually believe we can do 

a lot there which will raise our revenues without impacting our ridership. So that is number one. 

Number two, we are scrubbing everything internally in Amtrak, 

in terms of looking at our organization, our headcount, our procurement policies—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Is that—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. And all of those are—— 

Mr. SANFORD. But—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. All of those are—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, but why—I mean you all lose big money, for 

instance, on meal services, as I have seen. If that is the case, how 

is that being scrubbed, yet you, I mean, consistently lose—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, all I can answer for is what we are doing 

now. 

The third thing that we are doing, we are bringing in outside 

help to look at how we offer meals. What is the whole concept? 

What is it that we can do, given that the Congress has mandated 

reduce the losses on meal service, but at the same time it has mandated you don’t—we can’t do anything about labor costs? So that 

puts us in a position where we have to be very creative. 

Mr. SANFORD. What would—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. At this point—— 

Mr. SANFORD. If you had the choice, what would you do on labor 

cost? 

Mr. MOORMAN. What would we do on labor cost? We would probably try to figure out ways to deliver meals more efficiently to more 

people on the train using the same or less labor that we do today. 

But that—all of the—you are asking great questions. And all I 

can tell you is that, since my—in my short time at Amtrak—and 

what we are doing is try to answer exactly what those are—but 

they—but it is like every business. It comes back to how—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Again, I am down to 58 seconds. 

Mr. MOORMAN [continuing]. And lower costs. 

Mr. SANFORD. So if—again, specific measurable and achievable, 

I guess, is the mark of a real goal. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SANFORD. So what we have talked about is sort of generally—these are directions I would go. Are there three specific 

27 

things or two specific things that you would do to get your numbers 

out of the red? 

Mr. MOORMAN. We are in the process right now of completely reviewing procurement. We think we can drive several tens of millions of dollars out of our procurement costs. That is number one. 

We are looking at our entire organizational structure to see 

where we can probably eliminate over some period of time some 

layers of management. That is one. That will save us millions of 

dollars. 

And I will go back to we think there are substantial things we 

can do to increase revenues without impacting ridership—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Last question in the last 9 seconds I have. What 

is your least profitable route? 

Mr. MOORMAN. It would be one of the long-distance routes between Chicago and the west coast. And the—again, the profitability 

there is primarily because of losses because of allocated costs—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Got you. 

Mr. MOORMAN [continuing]. Rather than direct costs. 

Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Sanford. 

Mr. Carson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Moorman, I am very proud that the largest passenger railcar 

repair and maintenance facility is in our congressional district in 

Beech Grove, Indiana. That is the Amtrak facility. But I am also 

proud of one of Indiana’s engine manufacturers, which is Cummins. 

I am curious. What is Amtrak doing to reduce emissions and increase efficiency for their locomotives at this time? 

Mr. MOORMAN. So we have an aging—obviously, on the Northeast Corridor, we run electric locomotives. We have an aging diesel 

locomotive fleet, quite frankly. And a lot of work is done on that 

fleet at Beech Grove. 

Mr. CARSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOORMAN. And I will be there next week. New diesel locomotives are $6 million a copy. So, to replace our fleet would be 

about $1 billion. 

We are right now looking at how to rebuild them. Those rebuilds 

would include reducing emissions, while giving us more life on the 

diesel fleet. And I think we are about to put a very good program 

together that will accomplish both of those things. 

Mr. CARSON. Are there any obstacles to increasing the use of 

cleaner technologies? 

Mr. MOORMAN. The biggest obstacle I think I will go back to is 

just a financial obstacle. If you look at the freight railroads, 

which—the new locomotive standards from the FRA are the tier 4 

standards. We don’t have the capital to get to tier 4 locomotives, 

as I said. But I think there are ways—and we are aggressively pursuing them—to do exactly what you said, and extend the life of our 

assets. 

And I will say, by the way, that we are also looking always 

across the country on how we can be more efficient and emit less, 

in terms of carbon and pollutants. 

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamberger, do you have any thoughts from the freight side? 

28 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I would actually just like to turn it over 

to Mr. DeJoseph in a minute, because we were very concerned, several years ago, whether or not the supply side would be able to 

meet the EPA tier 4. And if they did, would there be a fuel penalty? 

But I am pleased to say that his members stepped up and we 

now have several manufacturers who meet the standard. But—— 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. As far as I know, all of our locomotive manufacturers are now in the position that they will be producing tier 4 

locomotives, going forward. I am not talking about the rebuilt side, 

I am talking about new locomotives. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you all. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Carson. 

Mr. Smucker, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the panel for being here, as well, and I certainly support continued 

investment at the Federal Government level in our rail infrastructure for both freight and passenger. 

Today I would like to just—first a comment and then a question 

in regards to passenger. And this is a comment for Mr. Moorman 

and Mr. Willis. I would just like to congratulate you, as well, for 

the work that is done at Penn Station. 

So I live along sort of the Keystone Corridor, which goes in and 

out of Penn Station, of course, multiple times a day, and have family—a daughter of mine is in the New York area. She spends time 

going back and forth, and I will occasionally do that, as well. And 

we went through the station several times during the course of a 

major project, expecting more delays than what we encountered, 

and so I think that project was coordinated very well, and I would 

like to thank you for that work well done. 

One of the opportunities I think we have in passenger is increasing the speeds. Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is the second busiest station in Pennsylvania behind 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. 

People use it on a regular basis to go to Harrisburg to work or to 

Philadelphia and, of course, all the way to New York. You know, 

and people are making decisions about whether to get in a car or 

to get in the train. If we can increase the speeds, I think we will 

continue to see ridership, which is already growing. 

I will occasionally ride the train from either Aberdeen or another 

station into DC here, and I have taken the Acela and I have taken 

the other train, as well. And it seems to me that, you know, the 

Acela provides additional benefit. 

But we haven’t nearly reached the speeds that high-speed trains 

have experienced in other countries. And I believe that is because—I think, Mr. Moorman, you briefly mention it in, or one of 

you maybe briefly mentioned the opportunities that we have here. 

Is there an infrastructure—it is tracks, other things? Why isn’t it 

that we cannot—what would it take, maybe is a better way to put 

the question, what would it take to increase the speeds on lines 

like the Acela? 

Mr. MOORMAN. At the end of the day, train speeds are determined by geometry. And the essential issue for both the corridor 

itself and parts of the Keystone line is that they were built when 

29 

80 miles per hour was an aspirational speed. And so there is a lot 

of curvature that just restricts train speed. 

What the Japanese and then the Europeans figured out a long 

time ago was hills don’t matter, you can put enough horsepower to 

go up and down as fast as you want. You slow down for curves. 

So if you look at the corridor, the two things are the geometry 

in a lot of places doesn’t permit higher speeds, and then we mix 

a lot of slow commuter trains with the high-speed trains. 

If you go to Japan or Europe or anywhere else and you experience those great trains, they are segregated from the commuters 

and they are new builds that are dead straight. So what stands in 

the way of the U.S. in terms of high speed is just you need that 

kind of infrastructure. 

Mr. SMUCKER. So have we reached our speed capacity on the 

Acela trains that we have now? 

Mr. MOORMAN. The new trains will be able to go slightly faster, 

and we are looking at some—maybe possible improvements that 

might improve some modest speeds. But once you get beyond that, 

every minute of savings is some hundreds of millions of dollars of 

investment. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. 

Mr. Willis, any comments on that? 

Mr. WILLIS. Yes. You know, I think Wick is clearly right, that it 

is—you know, it is the track on the corridor and the—you know, 

the new train sets that are being built up in Alstom are great, but 

they are not going to be able to go as fast as they otherwise could 

unless we make real improvements. 

Just to circle back on a conversation that occurred earlier about, 

you know, Amtrak losing money, you know, look—Amtrak is a public service. We subsidize other forms of transportation in this country, whether it is roads—our local bus, you know, outside doesn’t 

‘‘make money,’’ but it is there to provide a valuable travel service, 

just as Amtrak. And if we are going to have conversations about 

figuring out how to speed up trains as you want to do, we have to 

sort of get over that. 

I thought we sort of came over that hump as part of the FAST 

Act and had a debate of whether or not Amtrak needed to be 

privatized or what have you. But, you know, holding Amtrak accountable for not making money I think is a little unfair when, 

again, other forms of transportation get subsidized at both the Federal and State level. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Yes. All right, thank you. 

Dr. BABIN [presiding]. I would like to call on the gentleman from 

Arkansas, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you—— 

Dr. BABIN. I am sorry, Mr. Cohen. I apologize. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. We can see Arkansas from our patios. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Moorman, you probably are aware of the development in 

Memphis—where we can, in fact, see Arkansas—at the Central 

Station. And I think some of the people on your staff came to meet 

with me—I know they did, and they were very responsive. 

30 

This is a redevelopment of the train station into a marvelous 

downtown hotel by the people that started Holiday Inn, the 

Kemmons Wilson family, a residential area, and it will make the 

station for the customers much, much nicer, and a nice attraction. 

There is still a need of a lease that your real estate people are 

working on. Do you know who that might be that would be working 

on a lease with them? 

Mr. MOORMAN. I know in general who works on leases, and I will 

be talking with them shortly after this hearing. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. You know, 

your co-CEO, Mr. Anderson, in this room testified to his love for 

Memphis, to the people he loved, to the Rendezvous, to the river. 

Because of his love, I hope he will understand that we would not 

only like to get that station improved, but possibly get a second 

line from Chicago. I think there is talk of a second train to come 

to Memphis, I guess out of Carbondale or somewhere in southern 

Illinois. 

Do you know, since Delta left Memphis, a lot more people have 

been using the train, so that is a good thing. Do you know anything 

about that second line to Memphis? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Let me first echo my love for Memphis, as well 

as Mr. Anderson’s, and particularly for the Rendezvous. 

Mr. COHEN. John Vergos will appreciate the advertisement. 

Mr. MOORMAN. But, you know, I am not aware of any effort right 

now that we have internally—we may have done some preliminary 

looking, but there are no eminent plans to add a second service. 

And that would be an issue for us to do right now because of limitations around the equipment we have, and other, you know, 

things like that. 

Having said that, that is another thing I will go back and see if— 

to what extent any planning has progressed. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I was a State senator. It has been, like, 

25, 30 years they have been talking about a second train, and—I 

guess it would be a day train, and it would just come to Memphis 

and then go back. And there are a lot of folks who, I think, use 

that train, and especially poor people who can’t afford the airlines 

and—— 

Mr. MOORMAN. We will certainly take a look at it. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Hamberger, you are aware that there were adjustments 

made in the appropriations process to the President’s budget, and 

they made deep cuts to the state of good repair grants—I think cut 

$150 million—and the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 

Improvement Grants by close to $200 million, and the elimination 

of restoration and enhancement grants. 

What can you do or do you think you can do to influence the administration and/or Congress to put those monies back to the levels 

they were at? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, all I can do, I guess, is what I did today, 

is call for the appropriate money for Amtrak that needs to be in 

the state of good repair. I think it should be appropriated at the 

authorized levels. 

Mr. COHEN. I am sorry I missed your earlier testimony, but 

thank you for that. 

31 

I am a big fan of Amtrak, Mr. Moorman, from when I was—I 

guess it is a nostalgic thing, but it is also—it is a nice way to travel. And I did the Panama Limited and the City of New Orleans, 

and all that stuff, and I have done all the trains, and used a lot 

of—coming down from New York to Washington. 

Do you by chance know if Mr. Trump has ever been on an Amtrak train? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOORMAN. No, sir. I don’t know. 

Mr. COHEN. A lot of people from New York have, and it is a good 

thing, and we need to let him know that we need to help Amtrak. 

And I am kind of concerned about your labor cost on the food. 

When I have been on the train there has only been one person 

there putting the sandwich in the microwave. How much more 

labor cost is there? 

Mr. MOORMAN. The labor cost is more around the full dining car 

service, which we don’t have on the Memphis train right now, or 

the Acelas, where we just have one food car. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. MOORMAN. There are things we can do to enhance our—— 

Mr. COHEN. So it is on the trains, the longer distance trains. 

Mr. MOORMAN. The long-distance trains. But we have work to do 

there. And I will reiterate what I said. There is a lot of opportunity 

at Amtrak to improve our service and at the same time reduce our 

operating losses, and that is our goal. 

I think we have a good team. We have a lot of work underway. 

And my goal and Richard’s goal is to run this like a highly efficient 

company doing exactly what you, our shareholders, ask us to do. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, don’t eliminate any hubs, and don’t make the 

seats a lot smaller. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOORMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, I yield back. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you very much. And I would like to call on the 

gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Are you sure this time? 

Dr. BABIN. I am positive. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I remind the 

gentleman from Memphis he is in good company. Even though 

Moses didn’t get to go into the Promised Land, he got to go up and 

look in, and he never got to cross the river. But you are invited to 

cross the river and come on over some day. 

Mr. COHEN. DeAngelo Williams came on over to our side. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Right. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Moving right along, and I appreciate the witnesses being here today, and I appreciate your written testimony. 

I had a markup in another committee so I wasn’t here to hear your 

verbal testimony. 

But in my district we have about 18 short line railroads. I believe 

that is the largest number in the country. We also have a couple 

of class I railroads and we got a lot of folks that do supplies and 

32 

materials for railroads. So it is very important to my district, as 

it is to much of the rest of the country. 

So, Ms. Darr and Mr. Hamberger, I wanted to ask you all. What, 

other than Federal funding for discretionary grants, what types of 

policies would help implement the first mile and last mile improvements to our rail system? 

Ms. DARR. Well, first, Congressman, I want to congratulate you 

for winning the award for having the most short line railroads in 

your district of any Member of Congress. So you are uniquely positioned, so congratulations on that, and thank you for your support. 

We talked a little bit about this earlier, but generally, when I 

think of what is needed from my short line small business perspective is mindfulness to the fact that the average short line has fewer 

than 30 employees. So when we are talking about regulations, 

when we are talking about grant programs, when we are talking 

about anything that might support their operations, we need to 

keep in mind that we have folks running these railroads that have 

to wear many, many hats. 

And so, you know, the less complicated, the better, whether it is 

the training rule issue that we are debating right now with the Department of Transportation, or whether it is all the bureaucracy 

that goes behind the RRIF program, these things are costly, expensive, and overly complicated. So the extent to which we can simplify all of that, the better it would be for our members. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Two areas I would focus on, one complementary 

to what Linda just said, and that is regulatory reform and having 

environmental reviews done concurrently and not seriatim, for example, so that you can get a project off the drawing board and into 

the ground in a couple of years, rather than 7, 8, 9, or 10. 

And secondly, addressing what we have called modal inequities, 

where—as I know you know, we are privately owned, maintained. 

We invest $74 million a day into our network. And we compete 

with our also best customers, the trucking industry. And intermodal is now the largest single revenue source for the freight railroads, but it is also the biggest competitor. 

And as my testimony points out, I believe it is $143 billion of 

general revenue will have gone into the trust fund by 2020. And 

that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. And so, we would like 

to see—and I guess I tried to make the point with Mr. 

Garamendi—some way to have that trust fund funded by the user 

pay policy, and our suggestion would be a weight-distance tax, 

which would take into account the vehicle miles traveled and the 

weight of the particular vehicle going over the infrastructure. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. 

And, Mr. DeJoseph, I have got rail tie producers, I have got aggregate producers, and rail producers all in Arkansas, a lot of that 

in my district. I actually had the opportunity, back when I was 

doing engineering work, to design a borate pretreatment system for 

rail ties, so I understand that a little bit, and I know there was 

a shortage of rail ties, and I think there is still a shortage. 

But we are about out of time, but do you feel like we have got 

the supplies and the materials and the labor that we can update 

and build new rail systems? 

33 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. The rail tie folks are not part of our organization. 

I think the rail supply industry is ready and able to take on any 

challenge, any build that is out there for us. 

I do think that, from the contracting side, I think we have to look 

at—if there is Government funding involved, I think we have to 

look at this requirement to pay prevailing wage, which automatically increases the cost of the project. And I obviously think that 

we have to continue to look at the requirements, as Linda noted, 

about CFR part 243, which is the additional requirements on contractors for the Federal Government for training. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Time, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. And now I would like to call on 

a gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to apologize to my colleagues. I usually let all my colleagues go before me, 

but I didn’t realize there were going to be so many colleagues who 

wanted to speak today. 

First of all, thank you all for coming. And, as I expected, it is 

a pretty bipartisan hearing. We are all pretty much in agreement 

that rail is important and we would like to be able to do something 

about it. But there are a few things I would like to comment on. 

First of all, I didn’t know we were going to talk about taxes 

today. But for those of you who want tax cuts, it is awfully difficult 

for me to hear the very same people who want tax cuts simultaneously ask me to have more Federal spending on their issues. It 

is virtually impossible. None of you could do that with your private 

businesses, cut your revenues and increase your spending. 

What makes you think the Federal Government can do that? Unless, of course, you want to tell us what to cut, which, of course, 

gets you into a whole new quagmire that if you have a brain in 

your head you don’t want to get involved in, because that is a nowin situation. 

So, I am not going to ask about taxes, but since it came up, it 

is critically important to me. Everybody that comes in and asks me 

for things from the Federal Government, every one of you has to 

be willing to pay your fair share in taxes. 

That being said, I also want to comment on the DOT–111s and 

the PTC. When we did the DOT–111 legislation and the PTC legislation, I will tell you I had numerous people coming to me and saying we can’t get it done, it can’t be done, it is going to take 100 

years. And to sit here today and listen to the fact that we are pretty much done with the DOT–111s and we are on track for the PTC 

is great. It goes to prove that when any industry gets pushed to 

do something, you know how to do it. And when you work with 

Congress to come up with a reasonable timeframe within which to 

accomplish it, it can work. I want to say thank you and congratulations for doing that. They are both important to America, they are 

both important to safety. 

Ms. Darr, I really appreciate your answer, when asked by the 

chairman about prioritizing certain projects, that you have a lot of 

smaller projects. I think that is the answer I expected to hear, I 

am glad to hear it. 

But I also want to warn you—because I agree that we don’t want 

to forget the short lines—if you don’t find ways to prioritize some 

34 

projects, if not within the national scope, at least within the State 

scope, you run the risk of being forgotten. Because I will guarantee 

you if and when we ever get to an infrastructure bill, people will 

be tripping over themselves with project-ready things. We all love 

to be at ribbon cuttings, we all want to make announcements. If 

you are not ready with specific projects, I fear you would be left 

behind, and I think that would be a mistake and a tragedy. 

So I just would ask you to go back to your members and try to 

find some way to prioritize. I know there is no one big one, but at 

least here are the three in this State, and here are the three in 

that State, and work with the State members. 

Before I get to the one question I do have, I will tell you that 

I didn’t expect to get into one, but Mr. DeJoseph, in the heavy rail 

there is no, you know, hot line. In light rail there is a live line 

there. And once in a while people step on it and they die. And 

when you talk about prevailing wage, for me—that is a live line— 

the prevailing wage to me is the way that we ensure that monies 

that are spent by the Government actually get to working people. 

And without the prevailing wage, the disparities we are seeing 

today in income across this country would be greater. 

So I will guarantee you—though I agree with everything else, 

pretty much, that has been said, if you push prevailing wage 

changes, you will lose—I won’t speak for every Democrat, but darn 

close to every Democrat and a whole bunch of Republicans. Because, as far as I am concerned, that is a direct attack on the middle class. 

Now, I understand that reasonable people can disagree, and that 

is fine. But I would rather take an item like that that is a hot button issue and put it aside on a bigger issue where we can all find 

very common ground that we can work on. So, for me, that is—I 

wasn’t going to do this, but when I heard the words ‘‘prevailing 

wage,’’ I have been burning up here for about one-half hour, waiting to talk about it. 

And I love and respect you and what you do, and I am with you 

on everything else, but that one, that is the best way I can think 

of that would divide us, not just down the middle. My side will win. 

And the problem is if you push it you risk bringing down everything else for that, and I don’t think we want to do that. 

Mr. Hamberger—and it is not just you, but you are the one who 

mentioned it, about streamlining regulations. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. We are all trying to streamline regulations. Everybody wants that. But, you know, we will disagree exactly what 

streamlining is, and what the lack of regulations are. That is always a fine line. But to me, part of the problem is a lot of it is EPA 

and other agencies that are involved. It is not just streamlining 

regulations. You have to have somebody in place on the other side 

of the table to actually make those decisions. 

In your experience, have some of the cuts that we have made in 

the Government agencies reduced the personnel on the other side 

of the table, or made their jobs harder so that they cannot get to 

all the regulations that they are supposed to get? Have we cut it 

too much? Or is it just no regulation is good regulation? 

35 

Mr. HAMBERGER. It is not no regulation is a good regulation. In 

fact, I want to just emphasize that what we are talking about is 

not doing away with reviews, not doing away with making sure 

that it is done properly, but trying to streamline it. 

I am not really in a position to answer your question because it 

is our members who deal directly with the agencies. But let me 

take that question for the record and get back to you. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir, thank you. I now call on myself for a couple 

of questions. 

Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Sir? 

Dr. BABIN. How are you doing? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Doing fine, sir. 

Dr. BABIN. What are some of the steps the industry is taking to 

meet the projected increased demand for freight shipments over the 

next 20 years? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, the biggest, of course, is the continued investment that we have been doing over the past—as my testimony 

indicates, it is about $74 million a day. I think we have averaged 

$26 billion, $27 billion a year of private-sector investment, and that 

is money that is targeted at where the marketplace tells us freight 

is going to move. 

And sometimes the marketplace can be fickle. It wasn’t too long 

ago that I was hauled before Congress wanting to know why we 

weren’t investing more building a fourth line into the Powder River 

Basin. Well, we started to do that, and that line, of course, is what 

one might call a stranded asset these days. 

But we nonetheless made that investment. We are making investments now to try to respond to the growth of intermodal. We 

are making sure that we have capacity to move grain for export. 

So it really is the investment and, of course, the hiring and training of employees to be able to operate on the infrastructure, once 

we have it. 

Dr. BABIN. Absolutely. Thank you very much. 

I would like to ask you, Ms. Darr, what is the impact of burdensome and duplicative regulations on short line infrastructure investments and also the creation of American jobs? 

Ms. DARR. I would say—and I think I said in my testimony, as 

well—that our short lines have been overwhelmed in the last 8 

years or so by an enormous amount of regulation, a lot of which 

we don’t think is based in sound science or backed up by data. 

A big example of that is the CFR part 243 training rule. And I 

came before this committee a few months ago and shared with you 

a telephone-book-sized document that was just 1 piece—and it 

would have 25—we would have to replicate it 25 times to show 

what the requirement would be for a short line to comply with the 

training rules. 

So we have about 26 crafts in the industry. Each one of them 

would require a detailed training program, training manual. It 

would have to be approved by the FRA. And I added that up: 

15,600 separate plans would have to be approved—because we 

36 

have 600 railroads—by the Federal Railroad Administration. It just 

doesn’t make sense. 

So what we have done is spent a lot of money suing the U.S. Department of Transportation, money that we didn’t have, and this 

was the first time we have done this in 105 years. Our railroaders 

have spent a ton of time working together, trying to address this 

rule. And ultimately, we hope that the rule will be turned over and 

that it will go away. But that was a lot of lost time that we could 

have spent doing things that are a lot more productive for our industry. 

Dr. BABIN. All right. Thank you very much. 

And then, lastly, for Mr. DeJoseph and Mr. Willis, do you face 

any issues with conflicting safety regulations from different agencies? And, if so, what are some of the concerns, and what are possible solutions to that? 

Mr. DEJOSEPH. I would echo Linda’s statement about CFR part 

243, for example, which is adding significant additional costs to 

contracting companies that have to do work. We are talking about 

in the neighborhood—at least with our own company—of over 

$5,000 per employee to conform to the CFR part 243 regulations. 

Dr. BABIN. Mr. Willis? 

Mr. WILLIS. You know, I don’t think we have any issues with 

conflicting regulations, as you asked. I think, you know, FRA regulates in its space, and Federal transit regulates in their space. 

I just think, generally, we have talked a lot about how safe this 

industry is, and I think that is accurate. And there is a lot of reasons for it. It is front-line workers, it is responsible and good companies that are here at the table. But it is also the role of Federal 

regulators, and I don’t think we can discount the fact that Federal 

railroad has been very successful in going out there and making 

sure this industry is as safe as possible. 

Not to get into the weeds on each of these regulations, but, you 

know, a lot of these rules are very important, and we can’t just 

throw these things out without understanding there is an impact 

there. 

Dr. BABIN. OK, thank you very much—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, could I give you one conflict—— 

Dr. BABIN. You sure can. 

Mr. HAMBERGER [continuing]. In the environmental arena? We 

have 3 seconds left, sorry. 

But under FRA regulations we, of course, have to have appropriate and proper drainage along our right-of-way so that the rail 

maintains its integrity and the ballast maintains its integrity. And 

then, as that drainage occurs into the ditches alongside our track, 

along comes EPA to say that that is a navigable water and you 

may have to get a permit from the Corps of Engineers to go out 

and do some maintenance work. 

So, hopefully, that is one of the ways that EPA could interpret 

it, and that is just an example of where you do have a conflict. 

Dr. BABIN. Absolutely. I appreciate you adding that. OK. Well, 

the next questioner would be the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Cummings. 

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

37 

Mr. Moorman, Amtrak is a vital component of our Nation’s transportation network, and it is past time for us to make investments 

needed to modernize Amtrak’s infrastructure. You stated in your 

testimony that Amtrak is working to make the best use of its stations. 

And, as you know, I am from Baltimore. You noted that at Chicago’s Union Station, Amtrak had—and I quote—‘‘recently selected 

a master developer to oversee the commercial development of the 

station’s parking garage, concourses, air rights, and more than 14 

acres of adjacent land.’’ Amtrak has also been in the process of trying to identify a master development for Baltimore’s Penn Station. 

I consider it as very personal, something I have been working on 

for many years, trying to make sure that the development of Penn 

Station and that area around Penn Station, which is, by the way, 

a 5-minute drive from my house, takes place. Penn Station is an 

asset and has tremendous potential, and has been untapped for too 

many years. The station is obviously a key gateway into and out 

of Baltimore, serving approximately 3 million rail passengers annually. 

Right now, however, Penn Station is simply the place where folks 

come to catch a train. It isn’t a destination in itself, and it certainly 

isn’t able to support broader redevelopment in our community. 

Now, I must say that there are many developers who are coming 

to Baltimore. They see it as a place to be. And Penn Station so happens to be in a prime location. 

So, for many years—more than a decade, in fact—we have been 

working on this project. And I appreciate the modest improvements 

that Amtrak has made in the station’s basic facilities like the bathrooms, but much of the building still sits empty, and it provides almost none of the amenities that folks can access at Washington’s 

Union Station, or even Philadelphia Station. 

And to show you how serious I take this, it is not unusual for 

me to visit Penn Station once or twice a week, just to make sure 

the bathrooms are clean, to make sure that they are functioning 

properly, because I want people to feel welcome when they come to 

my city. But I also want it to be a place of destination, I want it 

to be a lively place where young people can have activities and office buildings, and things of that nature can be developed. 

So that is why I was very pleased to join Amtrak officials last 

August to announce that Amtrak was ready to receive qualifications from bidders that wanted to partner with Amtrak to revitalize Penn Station. 

So I just have two questions. Now, more than 1 year later, I 

want to hear from you what is going on with this process. How 

close are we to announcing the selection of a master developer and 

to learning about the developer’s proposals for transforming Penn 

Station? 

I also appreciate that there are limits on what you will be able 

to say here in this public setting. But will you commit to calling 

me as soon as the developer is selected and briefing me on the plan 

for revitalizing this very important station? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Thank you for the great question, Mr. Cummings. 

The answer is certainly. To the second part of your question is we 

will call you as soon as we have a name and the plan in place. We 

38 

don’t have it yet, we have been through a couple of iterations on 

it. It is a fairly complex plan to develop, with not only the station 

itself, but, as you know, a couple of adjacent pieces of property that 

Amtrak controls. 

We have had the RFPs out, we are looking at them and reviewing them right now. I would hope that, over the next 60 to 90 days, 

we will have the answer for you. But there are issues in how to 

do it best so that it not only accomplishes, you know, making it a 

better train station, which is obviously something we are very interested in, but making it a better area for the community, which 

is clearly what you need. 

So, we are in the mid-flight on it. It is one of, as you mentioned, 

several major stations where we are doing the same thing—Chicago being one, but certainly we are looking at Philadelphia Penn, 

Washington Union Station. New York Penn is its own world. And 

we are aggressively trying to pursue all of them. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. 

As we conclude today’s hearing, Mr. Moorman, I would like to 

follow up with just one last question, which you can provide greater 

detail in the future, as we move forward. 

But since our last hearing in June have you publicly released 

your 5-year plan now? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Yes, sir. Yes. The 5-year plan, along with the 

business line plans, have all been issued. 

Mr. DENHAM. And can you give us the profits that you are projecting for the newly formed Northeast Corridor account structure? 

Mr. MOORMAN. The cash generation on the corridor under the 

FAST structure, which is the new structure that we are reporting 

in, I don’t have the number right in front of me. Order of magnitude is about $400 million, which, obviously, is a significant part 

of Amtrak’s finances. But, as I often say, it, itself, doesn’t sustain 

the capital requirements for the corridor. 

Mr. DENHAM. And which projects are detailed out in the 5-year 

plan that are going to be utilizing the revenues generated from 

that corridor? 

Mr. MOORMAN. The basic projects that are detailed are, obviously, the Gateway project, starting with Portal North and the 

Hudson Tunnels. In addition, I mentioned earlier the B&P Tunnel, 

the Susquehanna River Bridge. Those are the major capital 

projects. 

But in addition we talk about just all of the work needed for the 

state of good repair, the track work, the work on the catenary, and 

things like that. 

The other thing that we have released, but I think—because 

much of the work was done before I arrived—is the 5-year business 

plans. That is where we are going back and really scrubbing to try 

to develop better strategies for today, in terms of what Amtrak can 

and should be, not only in the corridor, but in the long-distance 

network. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Looking forward to seeing greater detail on the 5-year plan. 

Mr. Hamberger, final thoughts? 

39 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I was remiss in answering your 

first question. We have submitted to Deputy Secretary Rosen, the 

designated regulatory reform officer at the Department of Transportation, a list of those regulations which we would like to see revisited at the Department. So I ask unanimous consent to submit 

that for the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

Thank you. 

[The information from the Association of American Railroads submitted to 

Deputy Secretary Rosen is included in response to a post-hearing question 

for the record and is on pages 63–71.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Are there any further questions from members of 

the subcommittee? 

Seeing none, I would like to thank each of our witnesses for their 

testimony today. Your contribution to today’s hearing has been 

very helpful. I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to the questions submitted to them in writing, and 

unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

40 


Insert offset folio 6 here 29828.006
41 


Insert offset folio 7 here 29828.007
42 


Insert offset folio 8 here 29828.008
43 


Insert offset folio 9 here 29828.009
44 


Insert offset folio 10 here 29828.010
45 


Insert offset folio 11 here 29828.011
46 


Insert offset folio 12 here 29828.012
47 


Insert offset folio 13 here 29828.013
48 


Insert offset folio 14 here 29828.014
49 


Insert offset folio 15 here 29828.015
50 


Insert offset folio 16 here 29828.016
51 


Insert offset folio 17 here 29828.017
52 


Insert offset folio 18 here 29828.018
53 


Insert offset folio 19 here 29828.019
54 


Insert offset folio 20 here 29828.020
55 


Insert offset folio 21 here 29828.021
56 


Insert offset folio 22 here 29828.022
57 


Insert offset folio 23 here 29828.023
58 


Insert offset folio 24 here 29828.024
59 


Insert offset folio 25 here 29828.025
60 


Insert offset folio 26 here 29828.026
61 


Insert offset folio 27 here 29828.027
62 


Insert offset folio 28 here 29828.028
63 


Insert offset folio 29 here 29828.029
64 


Insert offset folio 30 here 29828.030
65 


Insert offset folio 31 here 29828.031
66 


Insert offset folio 32 here 29828.032
67 


Insert offset folio 33 here 29828.033
68 


Insert offset folio 34 here 29828.034
69 


Insert offset folio 35 here 29828.035
70 


Insert offset folio 36 here 29828.036
71 


Insert offset folio 37 here 29828.037
72 


Insert offset folio 38 here 29828.038
73 


Insert offset folio 39 here 29828.039
74 


Insert offset folio 40 here 29828.040
75 


Insert offset folio 41 here 29828.041
76 


Insert offset folio 42 here 29828.042
77 


Insert offset folio 43 here 29828.043
78 


Insert offset folio 44 here 29828.044
79 


Insert offset folio 45 here 29828.045
80 


Insert offset folio 46 here 29828.046
81 


Insert offset folio 47 here 29828.047
82 


Insert offset folio 48 here 29828.048
83 


Insert offset folio 49 here 29828.049
84 


Insert offset folio 50 here 29828.050
85 


Insert offset folio 51 here 29828.051
86 


Insert offset folio 52 here 29828.052
87 


Insert offset folio 53 here 29828.053
88 


Insert offset folio 54 here 29828.054
89 


Insert offset folio 55 here 29828.055
90 


Insert offset folio 56 here 29828.056
91 


Insert offset folio 57 here 29828.057
92 


Insert offset folio 58 here 29828.058
93 


Insert offset folio 59 here 29828.059
94 


Insert offset folio 60 here 29828.060
95 


Insert offset folio 61 here 29828.061
96 


Insert offset folio 62 here 29828.062
97 


Insert offset folio 63 here 29828.063
98 


Insert offset folio 64 here 29828.064
99 


Insert offset folio 65 here 29828.065
100 


Insert offset folio 66 here 29828.066
101 


Insert offset folio 67 here 29828.067
102 


Insert offset folio 68 here 29828.068
103 


Insert offset folio 69 here 29828.069
104 


Insert offset folio 70 here 29828.070
105 


Insert offset folio 71 here 29828.071
106 


Insert offset folio 72 here 29828.072
107 


Insert offset folio 73 here 29828.073
108 


Insert offset folio 74 here 29828.074
109 


Insert offset folio 75 here 29828.075
110 


Insert offset folio 76 here 29828.076
111 


Insert offset folio 77 here 29828.077
112 


Insert offset folio 78 here 29828.078
113 


Insert offset folio 79 here 29828.079
114 


Insert offset folio 80 here 29828.080
115 


Insert offset folio 81 here 29828.081
116 


Insert offset folio 82 here 29828.082
117 


Insert offset folio 83 here 29828.083
118 


Insert offset folio 84 here 29828.084
119 


Insert offset folio 85 here 29828.085
120 


Insert offset folio 86 here 29828.086
121 


Insert offset folio 87 here 29828.087
122 


Insert offset folio 88 here 29828.088
123 


Insert offset folio 89 here 29828.089
124 


Insert offset folio 90 here 29828.090
125 


Insert offset folio 91 here 29828.091
126 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 92 here 29828.092