CSPAN - Witnesses Testify on U.S. Freight & Passenger Rail Network System

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Jan. 24, 2025 13:51-16:42 - CSPAN

02:50:48

Witnesses Testify on U.S. Freight & Passenger Rail Network System

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo Source

Participants

Main

pete stauber

rep/r 05:06

Appearances

burgess owens

rep/r 02:16

david taylor

rep/r 01:41

emilia sykes

rep/d 03:37

eric burlison

rep/r 01:56

hank johnson

rep/d 02:59

jerry nadler

rep/d 02:16

jesus chuy garcia

rep/d 02:20

mike kennedy

rep/r 01:44

nigel hamilton

00:57

pat ryan

rep/d 04:03

rick larsen

rep/d 04:37

seth moulton

rep/d 04:11

steve cohen

d 03:43

tim burchett

rep/r 02:06

troy e nehls

rep/r 03:42

Large

Voice

Scroll

Audio Only

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
Federal Regulations and AI Safety 00:04:27
unidentified		God bless America, my home sweet home.
		on June 24th.
		On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will hold a news conference to discuss interest rates and monetary policy following his meeting with the Federal Open Market Committee.
		You can watch that live at 2:30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		Oh, you think this is just a community sensor?
		No, it's way more than that.
		Comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create Wi-Fi-enabled lift zones so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Up next, we'll hear from rail industry officials testifying on the importance of the U.S. Freight and Passenger Rail Network before a House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee.
		They discuss safety regulations, federal funding, use of artificial intelligence to detect hazards, and the supply chain.
		This is just under three hours.
		Subcommittee on Rails, Pipelines, and Hazards of Materials will come to order.
		I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess anytime during today's hearing.
		I also ask unanimous consent that the members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit on the subcommittee and ask questions.
		So ordered.
		As a reminder, if members wish to insert a document of the record, please also email it to documents ti at mail.house.gov.
Dependable Rail Service 00:03:06
unidentified		I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening statement for five minutes.
		Since the early 19th century, when trains first began operating, railroads have played an essential role in shaping the nation's history and development.
		As America grew more dependent on railroads for commerce and transportation, rail became the very first industry to be regulated by the federal government under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
		Railroads remain an integral part of our nation's infrastructure and our modern economic survival, as well as being relying on dependable rail service.
		America's freight and rail network is widely considered the largest, safest, and most efficient system in the world.
		Spanning nearly 140,000 miles of track, this essential network annually moves over 1.6 billion tons of goods that Americans rely upon to survive.
		The moderate success of freight railroads largely traces back to the passage of Staggers Act of 1980, which deregulated the industry and allowed for unprecedented growth.
		In a time since Staggers was signed into law, moving goods by freight and rail has become cheaper, more efficient, and safer.
		Ensuring that the industry continues to grow without excessive and unnecessary government burdens is a key consideration that should be factored into any action toward freight rail taken by Congress or the executive branch.
		While this hearing will focus on America's freight rail network, it will also touch upon improving and constructively growing intercity passenger rail to best serve America's needs.
		Passenger rail works best where demand is high.
		Competition and private sector involvement are ample, and a dependence on government support is low.
		For Amtrak, we must look at improving and maintaining its existing network, winning it off government support, and providing competitive, reliable, and safe service to attract riders.
		Amtrak should serve as an appealing option for travel, not a replacement for vehicles and airplanes, which remains the overwhelming preference for Americans.
Guaranteed Funding for Rail 00:11:49
unidentified		As you know, the current service transportation authorization expires this Congress, and this committee has begun assessing the nation's infrastructure needs.
		Committee's work on surface authorization legislation will require us to be both principled and pragmatic.
		Building and supporting America's rail network involves cutting the red tape, improving safety through technology and improving and innovation, encouraging private sector involvement and competition, and decreasing dependence on government funding and control.
		So with that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses that are joining us today.
		Ian Jeffries, President and CEO, American Association of American Railroads, Chuck Baker, President, American Shortline and Regional Railroad Association, Joe Delisio.
		Is that it?
		Okay.
		Chair, National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association.
		And Jared Cassidy, Alternative Safety, National Safety and Legislative Director, Smart TD.
		Now I recognize Ranking Member Titus for five minutes, and it's great to be back united together, and we'll see what happens.
		Well, thank you, Chairman Webster.
		It's a pleasure to be working with you again now on trains before on economic development.
		I look forward to working with you and the other members of the subcommittee to make progress on matters related to railroads, pipelines, and hazardous materials.
		There's a lot of work to be done, such as completing pipeline and rail safety legislation and preparing for the surface transportation reauthorization so we can be sure to find a way to maintain ongoing investments for rail and pipeline safety projects.
		We don't want them to get lost in the highway shuffle.
		Las Vegas is my district, and it was founded as a rail stop initially.
		And right now, right through my district, right through downtown Las Vegas, we have a number of trains every day carrying all kinds of things.
		Now also we're at the forefront of the high-speed passenger rail.
		That's with the Bright Line, and that's going to be very exciting.
		This is a 218-mile route that has tremendous potential for economic development all across the Southwest, not just in Nevada, and it's going to create thousands of good paying union jobs.
		You know, Bright Line West is going to provide inner city passenger rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles and some stops in between.
		And it's going to turn what is a four-hour drive on a good day into a reliable two-hour ride.
		It's fully electrified and it's going to reduce emissions, it's going to relieve traffic, and it's going to provide travelers a safe and more fun way to get to their destination, which we hope is Las Vegas.
		Now, Bright Line was the first high-speed rail project to reach the first of its kind memorandum of understanding with all 13 rail unions.
		They all use rail labor in the operation and maintenance, and this is quite an accomplishment.
		All told, it's one of the most exciting passenger rail projects in the country in a long time.
		I was proud to support investments in the bipartisan infrastructure law that made this public-private partnership a reality.
		The project was awarded $3 billion in federal-state partnership for inner city passenger rail grants.
		That's a mouthful.
		But it's going to also include $9 billion in private investment.
		In addition to Bright Line, as I mentioned, we also see a number of freight shipments that move by rail right through the district.
		And these include hazardous materials.
		And I continue to have concerns about those as trains get longer and longer.
		So not only do we need to be mindful of train length, but I want to be sure that our workers and first responders know exactly what's moving on those trains.
		Congress required the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration to develop guidelines for the trains to inform first responders in real time after an accident occurs so they know what they're dealing with.
		I'm pleased that the previous administration was able to get this requirement finalized.
		It was in June 2024, and I urge its continued implementation so first responders have the information they need when they respond, and the communities around there are also prepared to deal with rail incidences.
		Lastly, I'd like to see this committee pass rail safety legislation.
		I'm glad that the previous administration finalized a two-person crew requirement.
		I've long advocated for that, and I was pleased to hear that the DOT nominee, Mr. Duffy, indicated his support for that requirement during his confirmation hearings last week.
		So I hope we can hold him to that and work with the new administration to get rail safety legislation that contains a number of important safety improvements across the finish line during this Congress.
		So I thank our witnesses who are here today for their time and look forward to hearing their information.
		And with that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you.
		I now recognize Deputy Rarson, the Ranking Member of the Fall Committee.
		Recognize five minutes.
rick larsen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Chair Webster and Ranking Member Titus for holding today's hearing.
		I'm glad we're following yesterday's hearing on building highways, roads, and bridges with this hearing on rail, because the infrastructure bill has helped create 1.6 million construction and manufacturing jobs across the country.
		These jobs with good wages and benefits and working conditions are driving the low 4.1 percent unemployment rate while modernizing our infrastructure, including our rail infrastructure.
		But as I said in yesterday's hearing, it makes it hard.
		This is why it makes it hard to understand how in the first day in office the administration signed an executive order to halt this progress, putting millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of jobs and thousands of projects at risk with one section of one of the executive orders.
		Halting the flow of benefits from these appropriations already approved by Congress is a strange way to launch the golden age of infrastructure.
		Instead, we need to be working on a bipartisan basis to continue these investments in all modes, in particular, as we discussed today, rail.
		Let's keep it going.
		The BIL provided transformational funding for passenger rail, as for instance.
		For the first time since the founding of Amtrak, Intercity Passenger Rail has guaranteed funding.
		Five years of advanced appropriations that allows Amtrak to address decades of deferred maintenance and begin construction on long-delayed capital projects.
		Before the BIL, Amtrak would have to wait until Congress completed the annual appropriations process to find out its capital and operating budget.
		That is no way to run a railroad.
		The BIL has invested nearly $53 billion for 594 projects to improve rail safety and expand passenger rail travel nationwide.
		In my state, the Cascadia Ultra High Speed Ground Transportation Project recently advanced to Phase 2 of the Corridor Identification and Development Program.
		It will connect communities throughout the Pacific Northwest to include Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Portland.
		It will connect workers in my district to jobs.
		It will increase access to housing.
		It will offer greater ways for almost 10 million people to get around the Northwest.
		Similarly, the Federal State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail is matching billions of dollars in state and private investment in passenger rail improvements.
		These investments include the Bright Line West, as Ranking Member Titus noted, and the Southeast Corridor improvements in North Carolina and Virginia.
		We have a need for guaranteed funding for rail.
		Public investment is vital to building a truly national intercity passenger rail system.
		Last week, the FRA released a report in support of additional long-distance service that incorporates feedback from 50,000 stakeholder and public comments.
		Amtrak will need new equipment and, in some cases, new stations to address these service improvements.
		We also have an obligation to ensure rail travel remains safe, safe for people and safe for goods, and safe for communities.
		So I welcome Secretary Designet Duffy's commitment to safety as the highest priority for the Department of Transportation.
		I look forward to working with him to reduce accidents and to save lives.
		Unfortunately, Class 1 freight rail accident and incident rates have not significantly improved over the last 10 years.
		In my state, there were 202 train accidents, 192 grade crossing incidents, and 21 railroad right-of-way trespasser fatalities over the last five years, including a BNSF derailment that spilled over 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel on the Swinish Indian Reservation in March of 2023.
		One major cause of incidents is longer trains.
		And last fall, the National Academies of Sciences published a report detailing the risks posed by long trains defined as those longer than 7,500 feet.
		These trains, especially trains made up of several different types of rail cars, are subject to in-train forces that can make it challenging for an engineer to control.
		I know communities in my district, and I'm certain around the country, express concerns with longer and longer trains, citing derailments.
		We're working on a few of those issues in my district, including a recent railroad crossing elimination grant in Everett, Washington.
		These types of grants are available through the FRA and available to any member of Congress's district to apply for.
		I encourage you all to consider that.
		I just want to end by saying that I know everyone on this committee wants to ensure freight rail remains a safe way to transport goods across the country.
		I look forward to working with all of you to achieve that goal.
		I'm committed to building on the successes of the investments in the BIL and ensure that this committee can say that America builds rail at hearings for many years to come.
		I want to thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to the discussion.
		Thank you.
		Yield back.
unidentified		Briefly, I'd like to take a moment to explain our lighting system in front of you.
		Green means go and can talk.
		Yellow means slow it down, and red means stop.
		So that's when you conclude your remarks.
		I ask unanimous consent that the full committee be included in the record, full statements of the witnesses be included in the record.
		Without objection, show that ordered.
		I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any question that may be submitted to them in writing.
		Without objection, show that ordered.
		I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments or information submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
		Without objection, show that ordered.
		As your written testimony has been made part of the record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to five minutes.
		And with that, Mr. Jeffries, you're recognized.
		Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the topic of surface transportation reauthorization.
Committee Begins Prioritizing Rail Infrastructure 00:15:49
unidentified		My name is Ian Jeffries, and I serve as the President and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, where we represent the nation's major freight railroads.
		I'm honored today to discuss the vital role railroads play for our nation and the policies needed to support continued success.
		Railroads are a cornerstone of the U.S. economy.
		Operating a network of over 140,000 miles, freight rail is exceptionally safe, economically vital, and privately funded.
		Unlike other transportation modes, freight railroads build, maintain, and invest their infrastructure almost entirely without federal funding.
		Since 1980, the industry has invested more than $690 billion in private capital, over $1.1 trillion in today's dollars, into maintaining and improving our network.
		That equates to an impressive $23 billion per year, or $442 million per week, every week, every year.
		This level of self-sufficiency is unmatched in the transportation sector and ensures that railroads remain a reliable backbone in the supply chain.
		It also tracks one-to-one with safety, which is at the heart of everything we do.
		The last decade has been the safest in rail history.
		Last year was safer than the year before, and the year before that.
		Significant declines in train accidents, employee injuries, and grade crossings delisions are the result.
		Led by an unwavering employee commitment, railroads today lead major industries in worker safety, safer than trucking, safer than airlines, safer than manufacturing, construction, and agriculture, just to name a few.
		Yet, our work in this space is never finished.
		Economically, freight rail supports nearly every industry, moving 1.5 billion tons of goods each year.
		That's 40 percent of all long-haul freight.
		From ag products to automobiles, chemicals to consumer goods, railroads connect communities and businesses in the country and beyond.
		Railroads' efficiency saves businesses billions annually and enhances U.S. global competitiveness.
		With real rates 42 percent below where they were in 1980, we are an ally in the ever-present fight against inflation.
		And our environmental impact is another advantage.
		Freight rail is three to four times more fuel efficient than our trucking partners.
		We reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 75 percent comparatively.
		As the demand for transportation grows, railroads are well positioned to meet continuing challenges.
		And it makes good business sense to be more efficient, as fuel is the second largest cost of our operations.
		As this committee begins to consider the next surface transportation bill, we encourage Congress to prioritize policies that uphold our ability to invest in infrastructure, support innovation, and advance data-driven safety improvements.
		We urge outcomes-based regulation to enable further deployment of next-generation technologies.
		Automated track inspections, for example, can improve safety outcomes, but have been hindered by outdated requirements that mandate manual inspections.
		A nimbler regulatory approach would allow railroads to innovate while advancing rigorous safety standards.
		Policies should be geared to meet specific challenges.
		If a policy cannot be said what problem it is solving, then I'd question its validity.
		Additionally, Congress should address the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
		The CBO projects without legislative action, the Highway Trust Fund will face insolvency by 2028, accumulating a $280 billion deficit by 2034, only increasing reliance on general fund transfers like the $118 billion provided under the IIJA.
		Reauthorization must also reject calls to increase truck size and weight limits, which would exacerbate these funding gaps, degrade roads, further increase congestion on our already clogged highways, and further create a competitive imbalance against our largest competitor.
		Additionally, programs such as the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program are crucial in collaborating with our public partners to improve grade crossing safety and reduce accidents.
		Common sense permitting reforms can also put dollars to work more quickly.
		Freight railroads will continue supporting the economy and driving growth through investment and innovation, and we look forward to working with this committee to ensure the policies enacted and the reauthorization enable the freight rail industry to drive safety, efficiency, and economic growth for years to come.
		Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
		Thank you very much.
		Mr. Baker, you recognize your five minutes.
		Thank you.
		Good morning.
		I'm Chuck Baker, President of the Shortline Association, representing the Nation's 600 small Class 2 and 3 freight railroads.
		Shortlines are the first and last miles of the freight rail network.
		We move industrial, agricultural, and energy products between ports, factories, and farms and the larger Class 1 railroads, which connect us to the national and global markets.
		Shortlines used to be the unprofitable branch lines of the larger railroads.
		Following partial deregulation, rather than abandon those lines, the Class 1 sold those lines to local entrepreneurs.
		Those newly minted short lines didn't have much traffic and weren't in great shape.
		But the local folks who took over these lines were eager to make a go of it.
		They ran efficiently, focused on getting just one more new customer or car load, and bent over backwards to serve their existing customers.
		And it worked.
		Today, shortlines are critical in your communities and ensure that the goods your constituents rely upon get to their homes and businesses safely and affordably.
		We now manage 50,000 miles of track, which is one-third of the freight rail network, and touch one-fifth of all carloads, but only account for about 6% of the industry's total revenue.
		So, shortlines are small businesses, but we have a large impact on the U.S. economy.
		We operate in 49 states, support 478,000 jobs, and produce $56 billion in value added to the economy.
		For decades, members of this subcommittee have supported policies that allowed shortlines to survive and thrive.
		Almost every one of you has a shortline in your district.
		Chairman Webster has two with the Florida Central and Florida Midland.
		Congressman Garcia has nine.
		Congressman Westerman, who's not here at the moment, he has 15.
		That's the most of anybody in Congress.
		Congressman Begich in Alaska is one of the states where shortlines are the entire freight rail network in the state.
		The title of this hearing is America Builds, and shortlines are indeed eager to build.
		The next surface transportation reauthorization bill will have a long-term impact on the country.
		Our top priority in that bill is robust funding for the CRISI program.
	It's the only federal program that shortlines are directly eligible for, and it's been transformational.
	240 shortline CRISI grants have been awarded.
	These are bridge rehabilitations, tie changeouts, and rail replacement projects that simply would not have been possible without CRISI.
	With March approaching, to use a college basketball analogy, CRISI helps get projects off of the bubble and into the big dance.
	Because of CRISI, shortline railroads are safer and customers are better served.
	Small towns and rural communities have new jobs.
	The air is cleaner, streets are less congested, and taxpayers are on the hook for less highway maintenance.
	My testimony provides a lengthy list of completed CRISI projects with specific statements of support.
	Here's one example: the plant manager of a wood panel processing facility in northeastern Michigan said, Lake State Railways service has allowed our operation to be cost-competitive despite our remote location.
	CRISI has allowed us to load 286,000-pound railcars, reducing our costs and helping to ensure our long-term success.
	Beyond robust funding, CRISI also needs advance appropriations to continue to be most effective.
	For long-term infrastructure investments, certainty and predictability are crucial.
	To make CRISI even more effective, we need to speed up the process and shorten the time from announcement to obligation.
	Good options include batch processing of NEPA categorical exclusions, more aggressive use of pre-award authority, or simply setting deadlines.
	This program can move faster with no real additional risk, and that would be good for getting America to build.
	On the safety and regulatory front, I'd ask that the committee keep the big picture in mind.
	Rail is the safest mode of surface transportation, and the industry is already highly regulated.
	Any new regulation should be focused on solving actual safety problems and be practical for shortline railroads to implement.
	For shortlines, the biggest derailment risk comes from broken rail and wide gauge.
	And the best way to fix that is simply to invest in the track, and that's what Chrissy already does.
	For railroads in general, the biggest safety risks come from grade crossing and trespasser accidents.
	The Section 130 program and the Rail Crossing Elimination Program address those issues, as does support for Operation Lifesaver.
	Finally, I ask that Congress not increase the size and weight of trucks on our nation's already overcrowded, undermaintained, and excessively dangerous highway system.
	We are joined by a broad coalition of cities, counties, police, first responders, labor organizations, and highway safety groups in that request.
	For railroads, trucks are direct competition.
	They already don't pay their fair share of highway maintenance, and making them bigger would make that problem worse.
	It would shift freight from rail to truck, and we'd end up with not only bigger trucks, but more of them too.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Now, Mr. DeLoisio.
	DeLuisio.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and members of this esteemed subcommittee.
	My name is Joe DeLoisio.
	I'm track division manager at a company called Railroad Construction Company, or RCC, and I currently serve as chairman of the board of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, or NRC.
	Let me first begin by congratulating Chairman Graves for another term as chairman of this vital committee.
	I would also like to congratulate Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus for your new positions on this important committee.
	Could you move the mic just a little closer?
	Sure.
	The NRC is an association that advances the mutual interests of railway contractors and suppliers who construct, maintain, and supply both freight and passenger railroads.
	I happen to be a third-generation railroader.
	My grandfather, Joe Sr., he built Railroad Track as a track foreman for the Erie Railroad and later established the company I worked for in 1926.
	My father, Joe Jr., served in the Army Corps of Engineers who began building America infrastructure towards the end of the Korean War.
	Multiple generations of my family, including aunts, uncles, cousins, all followed along this path.
	Building rail and building America, quite literally, runs in my blood.
	As I like to say, we are not just in this industry, we are this industry, and I view this industry as a family.
	My company, RCC, has a rich legacy of providing comprehensive track services on the eastern coast of the United States.
	But RCC is just one company within the NRC.
	Our member companies generate more than 100,000 jobs nationwide, supplying, building, and maintaining freight, passenger, and industrial rail networks.
	Our members are also mostly small businesses, so we focus on safely delivering quality goods and services for our railroad customers while also doing so in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
	NRC members perform every type of rail infrastructure work and serve every type of railway owner, including Class Ones, shortlines, and regional railroads and inner city passenger rail systems.
	In 2024, contractors played an invaluable role in helping railroads and industrial shippers in the southeastern United States respond to damages from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and we expect that helping tradition to continue throughout 2025 and beyond.
	As this committee begins the process of reauthorizing surface transportation programs, the NRC offers the following recommendations that we suggest will help America build.
	More detailed information is in my written testimony.
	We'd like to see provide robust funding for our core rail grant programs.
	The IIJA made many substantial impacts to our industry, including unprecedented levels of funding to rail programs.
	Spending on infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure, is truly a sound investment that pays dividends to our economy, supply chain, and transportation networks.
	The NRC supports funding at existing or increased levels for rail grant programs that improve efficiency, safety, and environmentally friendly freight and passenger rail transportation.
	In particular, the CRISI grant program is a vital source of funding the industry to address key safety improvement projects.
	Cutting red tape, the IIJA provided unprecedented levels of funding for key rail discretionary grant programs, which had been critical to improving both the freight supply chain as well as enhancing passenger rail in the U.S.
	However, the speed at which grant agreements have been executed has been too slow.
	We encourage Congress and the new administration to deliver grant funding in a responsible but more expedent manner.
	Support increased competition.
	The NRC strongly supports increased opportunities for contracting out and competition within these programs to stretch Federal funds further.
	This is not an attempt to take work from in-house labor forces.
	Rather, it is intended to help the industry as a whole perform more work more efficiently.
	Oftentimes, our members are able to find the most efficient ideas and methods to deliver projects for less cost without compromising safety.
	Separately but related, there have been attempts in past reauthorization bills to insert language that provides restrictions around the definitions of a rail carrier that are excessive, unnecessary, and attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
	These provisions would increase cost and reduce flexibility and would make it hard for initiate expand passenger systems.
	We focus on safety.
	It is imperative to allow railroads and rail contractors and suppliers to initiate and deploy safety technologies.
	We urge Congress to data-driven solutions that would effectively increase the safety of the rail network and avoid policy changes that would place unnecessary and excessive mandates on the rail industry that would not enhance rail safety.
	The NRC supports maintaining existing Federal truck size and weight maximums to help ensure safety on our roads and to control damage trucks cause on our highway infrastructure.
	Finally, the NRC has long supported safety in the industry, but numerous FRA regulations have not been data-driven, have had tenuous safety benefits despite being pitched as safety-sensitive and have been cumbersome to implement.
	Many times, this has placed undue paperwork on small businesses.
	Through this seems to be a top priority for every surface transportation reauthorization bill, the unfortunate reality is that permitting process for rail projects still moves way too slow.
	The NRC supports efforts to speed up federal permitting and review processes in order to deliver critical infrastructure projects without delays on a reasonable timeframe.
	Thank you for this opportunity to share my perspectives today, and I look forward to any questions.
Platform Threats and Safety Concerns 00:02:59
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Cassidy, you recognize your five minutes.
		Yes, sir.
		Thank you, Chair Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify this morning on the current state of America's freight and passenger rail network.
		As Deputy National Safety and Legislative Director and Chief Safety Officer for Smart TD, I speak on behalf of the men and women of the rail industry who are committed to ensuring a safe, efficient, and robust transportation system for our nation.
		I have had no greater pleasure in my career than the opportunity to represent the single most significant factor of what sets our railroad industry apart from the rest of the world, and that is the American Railroad Worker.
		It is because of their efforts and their dedication that the rail industry has been able to achieve so many improvements over the last couple of decades, but there is still much work that needs to be done.
		Currently, we are enjoying some of the most robust funding in Amtrak's history, so it should be no surprise that 2024 was a record year for ridership.
		Not only were more people able to enjoy the benefits of rail travel, but rural communities were better equipped to directly connect their citizens with the rest of the country.
		This means better access to work and medical care with fewer cars on roads and highways.
		But like every other passenger rail service on the planet, Amtrak cannot survive on fare box revenue alone, which is why adequate funding is so important.
		But it is not just funding that is needed on Amtrak.
		It is legislative and regulatory support to protect the workers and riders from violent assailants.
		Almost daily, a train, platform, or customer service worker is threatened verbally or physically while simply trying to perform the functions of their job.
		It is not uncommon for conductors to be cussed out, spit on, punched, or worse.
		But even more troubling is the limitations on responding law enforcement officers to do anything about it.
		Unlike aviation, rail lacks sufficient statutes to handle bad actors accordingly.
		More often than not, an assaulter, once detained, is forced to disembark the train in which the assault took place.
		But because arrest isn't permissible, they are permitted to just wait on the platform and then board the next train, expanding the threat and not limiting it.
		Our members' main priority when they are at work is to perform the functions of their jobs to the best of their ability, day in and day out.
		They want to get to where they are going safely, without an incident, and then back home to their families the same way they went to work.
		They take pride in safely moving passengers and freight, and they are proud to see a job well done.
		I think this is why there is so much internal conflict in the rail space today, because workers are being asked to do more with less, resulting in diminished service and deficient safety processes and protocols.
		Training in the freight rail side of the industry has become abysmal on the majority of Class 1 railroads.
		While some positive changes have been made on at least one major railroad, the reality is that carriers are more focused on the shortest path rather than the most efficient one.
		Serious and concerning reductions in training timelines are now present, and they are having an adverse impact, not just on safety, but also on the attraction and retention of the railroad workforce.
Safety First in Rail Regulations 00:15:24
unidentified		Trains are growing longer, heavier, and more burdensome on neighborhoods and communities.
		Conductors and engineers are being asked to do more with less.
		The onboard technologies are not wholly reliable, while others like wayside detectors are still seemingly flipped on and off like a switch.
		Train accident and incident frequency continues to creep up despite fewer trains on the system, an indicator of the dangers of long trains, and yard accidents are becoming a serious concern.
		The answer does not lie simply in new technology and waivers from critical safe rulemaking and or regulations.
		It lies in a steadfast commitment to achieving the safest course.
		Technology is not safer simply because it is technological.
		It is people that make the difference.
		President Trump acknowledged this truth in his support of the International Longshoremen's Association fight against automation.
		Labor should not be viewed as adversaries.
		We are the key to success.
		After all, it is the two-person crew that has brought about the safest and richest era ever in railroading history.
		It is the carmen and electricians best qualified to perform the required inspections that produce the best results.
		And it is all of the craft workers that drive the truest pursuit to achieving the safest course.
		To close, I want to align my comment excuse me.
		To close, I want to align my comment with the President's recent statements about the need for a transparent government.
		The only way to gather, analyze, and interpret data or to introduce new innovations is to do so transparently and inclusively, with all stakeholders having a seat at the table and an equal voice in the process.
		After all, it is the workers that are best suited to speak to the truths and realities of the impacts or potential effects of the consistencies of the data and the technology desired and being developed.
		Innovation should absolutely be considered, but not for the sake of safety.
		There is no one better suited to drive every conversation and every effort towards safety than labor.
		Our mission is simple, and it does not waver.
		Safety will always lead the way.
		We stand ready to work with you and your offices to get us there.
		Again, I thank you for the opportunity.
		Thank you very much.
		So we now turn to questions from the panel.
		I'll recognize myself for five minutes.
		My first question goes both to Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Baker.
		Purpose of safety regulations should be to achieve safety outcome in the most efficient means possible.
		Most FRA regulations are prescriptive in their approach.
		How could the industry benefit from a more performance-based approach to establish standards while also allowing operators flexibility on how those standards are achieved?
		I'll start with Mr. Jeffries.
		Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
		So we are a 200-plus-year-old industry in the originally federally regulated industry.
		And we have got the code of federal regulations to support that.
		We still have regulations on the books from the steam engine era, over 50 years old.
		And what that does, what that results in, when they aren't updated, when they don't evolve with the railroad, with the evolution of technology and innovation, is lock you into perhaps a backwards-looking operating practice that may or may not result in the highest level of safety.
		And when you think about regulations, I think we would all agree you should be thinking about the outcome you are seeking, the safety outcome you are seeking versus the input you are providing.
		And so when you have a performance-based regulation, when you have an outcomes-based regulation, you set a standard and you allow for multiple ways to achieve that standard, also allowing for new developments in technology, new developments in innovation, new operating practices that can achieve, if not exceed that standard.
		So not locking in current technology or current operating practice is key, in our opinion, in order to advance safety down the road into the future.
		I would add, Mr. Chairman, that the difference between shortlines and Class 1s, I think, illustrates your point.
		A regulation that would work for a 20,000-person Fortune 500 company with 13 different unions probably makes no sense for a five-person company with one locomotive and maybe one union.
		And so I think common sense would tell you in that scenario, a performance-based, outcome-based regulation would make more sense than a prescriptive government telling you exactly how to do it.
		Anyone else comment on that?
		Yes, Mr. Cassidy?
		Mr. Western, or excuse me, Chairman Western, thank you for the question.
		What I will add is, Labor supports the idea of performance-based regulations inasmuch as what we are doing or trying to achieve is done safely.
		We do have a lot of regulations that look backward, but that speaks to the fact that how we achieve the level of safety we have today is that regulations made sure we had the guidelines and protocols to get us there.
		And so when we consider innovation, please rest assured that Labor supports new technology and innovation to help us work safer.
		But we need to make sure that the umbrella is not too big so that when the new technologies are being developed, that there is not too much freedom, because the impact could be great on the American public.
		These are new ideas and new things, so we need to make sure that we have the right processes in place.
		And when I said in my testimony that Labor stands ready to work, it is vitally important that we play a role in these technologies and innovations because we are the ones that are most impacted by it.
		And we are also the ones best suited to protect the public and how it can impact them.
		So when we look forward to a new process for regulations, safety has got to lead the way in these.
		We cannot accept technology as safer simply because it is technological.
		We have to make sure we are doing what's right.
		Can each of you or one or all of you Describe the importance of permitting reform for building and maintaining a robust and safe rail network and infrastructure networks.
		Anyone want to take that one?
		I'd be happy to.
		It's a cliche, but it's very true.
		In this case, time is money.
		Permitting reform, when projects are delayed, and CRISCI projects are a great example, when they're delayed, costs go up and scope gets reduced.
		So getting it done faster just means more gets done in the communities and benefits communities and shippers feel the benefits sooner.
		So for most shortline projects, CRISCI projects, they're really quite simple.
	They typically involve track rehab in an existing right-of-way.
	It is obvious from day one that a project like that is going to have no significant environmental impact, and yet still we somehow frequently spend a year or more in sort of an elaborate box checking exercise when everyone knows the outcome.
	And I would say, let's just get to it.
	That's the end of my time.
	So I recognize.
	Ms. Titus, you recognize for question.
	Thank you.
	We'll hear a lot about safety today, and certainly it is a priority.
	Mr. Cassidy, you said transportation workers are the backbone of our armor infrastructure system, and I certainly agree with that.
	We need to be sure that they can perform their duties in a knowledgeable way, in a safe way, in a way that benefits themselves as well as their communities.
	I understand that SMART participated in nine national transportation safety board investigations last year.
	And I would just ask you, with all this emphasis on safety, why are conductors still getting hurt on the job?
	Do you notice patterns?
	Is there anything that we can do about it that might be helpful?
	Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Titus.
	And that is a loaded question.
	Why are our members still getting hurt on the job is a multitude of reasoning.
	I would start with training.
	When I hired on with the railroad, I come from the craft that those that may not know that, I started as a conductor on CSX Transportation and was promoted to a locomotive engineer in 2008.
	Our training was robust, and it was quite different.
	In fact, I actually had to pay almost $6,000 just to hire on with the railroad to transition that to what we are looking at today, where you get a bonus for taking the job.
	But the point I'm trying to make is that the emphasis was on training.
	We had to go through a regimented process in a school of roughly six weeks, and then we had roughly six months of training.
	The way the training programs work in the regulatory world is that the railroads are required to develop programs and submit those programs to FRA.
	But there is so much freedom in the training programs, the way that they are approved, that they are able to make adjustments or slash timelines without any oversight whatsoever.
	And what we are seeing now today is training that is being rushed through at astronomical levels.
	In some cases, in six weeks, you see people from hire to working as a conductor.
	And so that is the single greatest factor.
	There is not an incident anywhere in this country that we have had the opportunity to investigate with the NTSB that training did not have a role in that.
	Then you look at some of the practices and the efficiencies and the pressures, the external pressures that are being put on workers, and you have a recipe for disaster.
	So there's a lot of things that we can improve, but to make this answer short, we have got to get back to taking on training, not focusing on regulatory minimums and only doing what's required by the regulation, but actually owning safety and making sure that our folks are comfortable in their own skin when they're at work and aware of what's going on, what changes have been made, and how to do the job effectively and efficiently.
	Thank you very much.
	I think we should look at that as we move forward on this.
	Appreciate that.
	Mr. Jeffries, I've just been in this position a short time, and I've already had a number of members talk to me about blocked crossings and long trains and the problems that they cause in their communities.
	I understand that this committee was told last year that they shouldn't act on any legislation until the report came out of the National Academies of Sciences on the problem of long trains.
	That was mandated by the bipartisan infrastructure law.
	Has that report come out?
	I believe it may have, yes.
	I think it came out September the 17th.
	Okay.
	So I would just ask you: what is in that report that says that we now can act on or should act on to address this problem of long trains and blocked crossings?
	So thank you for the question, Ranking Member.
	If I could quickly hit on Mr. Cassidy's comments before I get into this question, 2023 was actually the industry's all-time low in employee injuries, the rate of injuries in the entire industry's history for class ones.
	2024, we're still closing out that data through 10 months.
	It's slightly lower than 2023.
	Always more work to be done.
	Rigorous training is absolutely key, but I just wanted to include that data point.
	When it comes to trains and train makeup and train length, the median train length of Class 1 train right now, meaning 50 percentile, is about 5,000 feet, and about 90 percent are shorter than 10,000 feet, and 99 percent are shorter than 14,000 feet.
	And train makeup is a subject of commodity mix, it's a subject of what the infrastructure capacity is.
	And trains are built to be managed based on what the capacity of both the commodities being moved and the length of the train.
	And I can tell you, in looking at the train accident rate, as we've seen in certain areas, trains grow a bit longer depending on commodity mix, largely driven by the decrease in coal, increase in intermodal.
	We've actually seen the rate decrease.
	We've seen the rate decrease from 2022 to 2023 through the first 10 months of 24.
	And so we continue to operate trains in a safe manner, regardless of length and commodity mix.
	I appreciate that.
	But my question was about the report.
	What it said that Congress could now act on since this information has come out about these long trains and blocked crossings.
	If I could just briefly say that Congress should empower regulatory agencies to address challenges by requiring railroads to put cars together in the safest configuration, ensuring crews are trained, authorizing the FRA to obtain and publicly share data on blocked crossings, and imposing financial penalties of sufficient magnitude to ensure the crossings don't remain blocked.
	So I think this is something we need to look at as we move forward with this reauthorization.
	Thank you, and I'll yield back.
	General Leader yields back.
	Mr. LaMatha, you're recognized for five minutes.
	LaMatha.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Appreciate it.
	And thanks to our panelists.
	I'm going to have a couple questions for Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Baker to start up with.
	And it's going to be based on our old pals Carb in California, California Air Resources Board.
	As you know, they submitted in 23 a petition to EPA to be granted yet another waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own standards for locomotives called the in-use locomotive regulation.
	It will require by 2030.
	Not loud enough.
	Okay.
	Part of it to me, I'm kind of broken, too.
	So, anyway.
	So by 2030, only locomotive engines made 2008 or newer are available in California under that reg.
	So it could be that that reg request would violate the Clean Air Act, which explicitly prohibits states from setting their own standards for used locomotive engines, but also isn't technologically feasible at this point.
	Now CARB has seen the light and withdrawn, for now, its waiver application to EPA for the in-use locomotive reg.
	So please gentlemen please, tell this committee what the economic impact of the railroad industry would have been if EPA had gone through this rule, and how would any cost increases basically hit the consumer?
	So first mr. Jeffreys for a moment, then mr. Baker, so what the impact of the rule would have been?
	Well, I can tell you, for the two class one railroads located in California BNSF and Union Pacific the annual cost would have been $800 million per year, so 1.6 billion collectively, and I know that the shortlines have reported that at least 25 percent of their companies would be put out of business.
CARB's Waiver Withdrawal 00:03:19
unidentified		We're we're gratified that CARB withdrew its request to EPA.
		The request was unlawful not only under the Clean Air Act but also under ICTA, the Interstate Commerce Committee Termination Act.
		Certainly the the overarching goals of the regulation were laudable to to move to further decrease emissions and that's something railroads continue to work on to this day.
		Well, you are working as technology improves, not heavy-handed mandates, mr. Baker.
		Yes sir, it.
		We were extraordinarily concerned about that waiver.
		You would not have thought that CARB could come up with a waiver that the last EPA wouldn't have approved, but they seem to have.
		They seem to have found one, and so we were.
		We were pleased when it was finally withdrawn.
		It would have been completely catastrophic for the shortline railroad.
		And tell me, tell me, mr. Baker, there's a quote out there saying that CARB acknowledges that a percentage of shortlines.
		They know they would go out of business.
		Yeah, in CARB's own rule they said if shortline railroads can't pass on these costs to their customers, which most couldn't, they would just go out of business.
		And they just left that in there as like.
		Well, that's a, that's an okay result.
		And we, obviously we found that pretty horrifying and their shippers found that horrifying in the communities.
		And well, it's very important for in my area of ag products you know the moving, moving rice or other other things in the area, or wood, wood from the mill and being able to get it to the main line in a timely manner and is just, it's just over.
		It's amazing.
		So tell me about this gentleman on the, if President Trump has come out on the side of not allowing this mandate to come forward, but what if we have a change politically?
		And should we have a change of the laws to make certain That CARB doesn't have the ability to get waivers in the future and just keep some continuity in the industry?
		I would say absolutely.
		Again, we think it's what CARB tried to do with locomotive regulations was in complete conflict with two existing laws, but apparently that needs further clarification.
		Yeah.
		Mr. Jeffries, you touched on at-grade crossings, and I have a great concern that because in rural areas, that's about it.
		And my understanding from a previous hearing, if I'm remembering correctly, is that to make an at-grade crossing into a split crossing is about $40 million, at least in my high-cost state of California.
		So what do you see in that split, that at-grade elimination program?
		For everyone that goes out, are we going to put one in?
		Are we going to put one in that is a split grade, or are we going to see a bunch eliminated?
		Because we have this mess of high-speed rail going through the Central Valley that's going to cut off a lot of farms and access.
Grade Crossing Safety 00:08:56
unidentified		Touch on that, please, Jeff.
		So I think grade crossing elimination is absolutely key in certain situations.
		Certainly it doesn't apply everywhere.
		But I think in areas anywhere you have a grade crossing, an at-grade crossing, driver education is important so that folks know to see track think trains and look for trains that might be oncoming.
		Having appropriate safety equipment at the crossing, again, is a key safety attribute.
		But there's no one-size-fits-all.
		The important thing, though, is that folks understand that when road and rail connects, the drivers need to assume there's a train coming and verify that that's not happening before trying to get across the track.
		Yeah, I mean, we got lights and signals and arms and all this stuff.
		So after a point, it becomes the Darwin Awards or something.
		So anyway, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
		John yields back.
		It's Mr. Garzon.
		Thank you, Chairman.
		One of the many executive orders this week froze hiring and infrastructure funding.
		Now, considering that many infrastructure projects really get started in the spring, as you all know, this timing was anything but good.
		In fact, the Federal Highway Administration had to shut down all payments because of this very poorly drafted executive order.
		Last evening, I, along with my team, heard from the Metropolitan Planning Organization, our local one, and they're very concerned about the damage this will do to infrastructure projects that are underway or at least soon to start.
		Do any of you have concerns about this new funding freeze damaging your priority objectives?
		And if so, please tell us how these executive orders will effectively hurt your progress.
		I would agree, Congressman, the executive order was not real well worded.
		I think the initial one-day reaction was a blanket pause across all of DOT on all disbursements.
		I do think that the clarification memo posted to the White House website last night clarified that it was really only meant to deal with what they're calling Green New Deal projects and EV mandates.
		So I think in reality, after 36 hours of extreme concern, I don't think really many rail projects at all will be affected.
		But it is, you know, it was probably a lesson in being careful with words that get posted to the Federal Register and executive orders.
		Yeah.
		To that point, while we're there, Mr. Baker, you know very well that the great Hoosier State, Indiana, is the home to many very thriving shortline railroads, which helps us live up to the Hoosier nickname, the Crossroads of America.
		What's working well now in terms of short lines and your customers, and what are the challenges ahead for this very unique sector, and how can this committee help your efforts effectively?
		Yes, sir.
		There are a lot of short lines in all of Indiana.
		I believe there are four in your district alone.
		The Napoleon Defiance in Western is a great example.
		Ten years ago, there was a viral, at least viral for the world of freight railroading, a viral video showing a train moving down that track at about five miles per hour, and it was wavy and it was messy, and it was called the worst railroad in America.
		And it probably was.
		That railroad has now received a CRISI grant, has upgraded its infrastructure, has doubled its customer base, is moving faster and moving safer.
		It's good for the community.
		It's good for the state.
		It's good for the shippers.
		It's a fabulous success story, and that's replicated in multiple places in Indiana.
		And again, at the risk of harping over and over on the same point, the CRISI grant is a huge help for shortline railroads.
		It can be transformational, and it just lets railroads like Napoleon Defiance in Western in Indiana do projects that otherwise wouldn't be possible.
		Absolutely.
		Thank you, Chairman.
		I yield back.
		Chairman yields back.
		Mr. Knowles, you're recognized for five minutes.
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
		I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the freight and passenger rail network.
		As we gear up for the surface reauthorization, I have several priorities that I will be advocating for and that I believe will increase safety.
		Mr. Jeffries, I want to commend you for your comments on the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program.
		I do believe we are of one mind, one mind, that the safest crossing is the crossing that is not there.
		I believe Labor supports it as well.
		I'd like to say, hey, good to see you, Greg.
		Good to see you, Jared.
		As we work on surface reauthorization and specifically the rail title, I will most assuredly be advocating for that program and another one to modernize the tank fleet with 21 Century Telematics.
		The telematics grant program that I authored in the Railway Safety Enhancement Act will give shippers and tank car owners vital information about their assets' health and information about where their products are in the rail network.
		I believe this information is the property of the tank car owners and must be shared with the operators in real time as their goods are moving along the rail network.
		Mr. Jeffries, the FCC's allocation for the 900 megahertz spectrum is a valuable opportunity for the railroads to enhance safety reliability and operational efficiency.
		Will the Class 1 railroads commit to comply with the FCC order on spectrum by September of this year?
		I think they want to know by September of 2025.
		Will you do that?
unidentified		Thank you for the question.
		And you're spot on with our shared views on rail crossing elimination and thank you for your support on that.
		Yes, we will comply.
		I've talked to our internal experts and we're on schedule to comply and be happy to bring in those experts to sit down with you and your team in more detail.
		But that process is in place and we're moving forward.
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		And will you commit to promptly inform the FCC and members of this committee if there are any issues with compliance?
unidentified		Absolutely.
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		Once the railroads are done moving to the A block within the 900 band, can you share what the railroad industry's plans are to further develop that spectrum to show a continued commitment to safety and what the timeframe the industry will need to achieve that?
unidentified		Well, certainly that's what we're developing right now.
		And when you look at spectrum use and what we've been able to build out along our network through our PTC network, we've got a 54,000-mile 5G network now.
		Moving on to tighter bands of spectrum, that will open up more capacity, allow us to really take kind of the wireless backbone to new heights.
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm going to have some follow-up questions for the record on this topic, and I expect them to be answered.
		I'd like to pivot to a discussion about C3RS.
		Mr. Jeffries, what changes do railroads recommend to the confidential close call reporting system, which is at C3RS, to get more of the Class 1 railroads to enroll in the program?
		Because if you remember, you sent a letter saying all the Class 1s would enroll in this after East Palestine.
unidentified		Thank you for that.
		And it's a good discussion to have again.
		So two of the Class 1s have signed up to the program.
		We've long held views that edits need to be made to the program.
		when folks think about the ability to report concerns confidentially, first and foremost, every railroad has a system like that in place.
		And following the aviation...
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		That's just, Mr. Jeffries, hate to cut you off, but let's get it done.
		I have a minute left.
		I believe you testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in March of 2023.
		Then Senator Vance asked if 30 seconds was enough time to perform car inspections, to which you replied, quote, 30 seconds doesn't seem like a long enough time to do an in-depth inspection.
Investing in Efficiency 00:11:37
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		Should there be a minimum time requirement for Carmen to do inspections?
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		And if not, what do you recommend?
unidentified		So I'd say there's no one-size-fits-all.
		There's myriad inspections that occur.
		And while 30 seconds may not be a lot, there may be zero time required if it's an autonomous inspection.
troy e nehls ▲ ● ▼		Fair enough.
		Let the record reflect that Vice President Vance introduced legislation to mandate two-person crew size that was endorsed by President Trump.
		Incoming Secretary Duffy, who just moved out of Commerce Committee by a vote of 28 to 0, confirmed he would not pull back the two-man work rule.
		As a member of this committee, I support that rule.
		The idea that Republicans will do whatever big business want and will not take into account the needs of the working men, it's outdated.
		I will just say that dog doesn't hunt.
		With that, I yield back.
unidentified		Gentleman yields back.
unidentified		Mr. Moon.
seth moulton ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And I just want to begin with a word of appreciation for the comments from my colleague from Texas, who's been a real partner on working to find good solutions for For rail safety, rail safety solutions that take the industry forward, not backward, and improve safety for all, and make the point to all of America that rail is a far safer way to transport things, especially hazmat, than trucks.
		And that point seems to be lost on a lot of people.
		Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks, you talked about improving safety through technology and innovation.
		That's what we're talking about.
		When the industry comes back to us and says you just want to install defect detectors, a 1960s technology, when you have the opportunity to put in telematics so that every engineer on every train knows the instantaneous bearing temperature of every wheel and can immediately respond to a problem.
		And oh, by the way, it's not so bad that customers also know where their cars are for the first time in history.
		That's about taking the industry forward, not back.
		Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that you talked about decreasing dependence on government funding for railroads.
		It's interesting that you don't talk about decreasing dependence on government funding for highways or airlines.
		We've subsidized highways and airlines to the tune of billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades.
		It's interesting that the freight railroad system is asked to compete against this heavily subsidized alternative.
		The freight railroads are really the only transportation system in America that funds its own infrastructure through the private sector, right?
		Now, President Trump has instituted this new Department of Government efficiency.
		I think the idea is that the government should invest in efficiency and perhaps not subsidize inefficiency.
		So if the only transportation system efficient enough to pay for its own infrastructure is freight rail, then why do we continue spending billions and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars every year subsidizing highways and truckers?
		Shouldn't we be investing in efficiency?
		Does that make sense to you, Mr. Jeffries?
unidentified		100 percent.
seth moulton ▲ ● ▼		You also mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that Amtrak should be off government support, but you didn't mention that our highways should be off government support or that our airlines should be off government support.
		It's an interesting contrast.
		Mr. Cassidy, you mentioned high-speed rail in your opening comments or your testimony.
		It's interesting that America is the only developed country in the world not investing in high-speed rail, the only developed country in the entire world.
		I challenge anyone here to think of another developed country that is not investing in high-speed rail.
		We are just barely starting.
		Now, is that because there is some vast high-speed rail conspiracy that has infected every other country on earth and just hasn't hit the United States yet?
		Or does it actually make sense, make economic sense to invest in high-speed rail?
unidentified		Thank you for the question, Congressman.
		It absolutely makes sense to invest in high-speed rail.
		We fall short in comparison to the other countries, and one of the most advantageous opportunities we have is to expand the rail system in this country, and high-speed rail is that opportunity.
		And we fully support or on board to see more rail for the citizens of this country.
		And so, you know, we need to capitalize on that.
		We need to accept that.
		There are no conspiracies out there as far as I am aware of high-speed rail.
		The one hurdle we do have is that for some reason in this country, people hear railroads and they think of ancient technology or ancient methods of transportation.
		And we've got to get outside of that box and make sure that we're talking to folks and letting them know what rail can do for them and how we can make their lives better.
seth moulton ▲ ● ▼		Rail is a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
		It's a more efficient way to simply transport goods.
		One single train can take 150 to 300 trucks off the highway.
		That's good for everybody who uses our highways, truckers, passenger cars.
		We know that tens of thousands of Americans die on our highways every year.
		Railroads are far safer.
		They're also better for the environment.
		I mean, the benefits go on.
		So let's invest in efficiency.
		Mr. Jeffries, why does the rail industry have a reputation for being stodgy and old-fashioned and doing things like Mr. Nels and I described, investing in old-fashioned technology rather than growing for the future?
unidentified		Well, I would beg to differ, not surprisingly.
		Look, we're a 200-year-old industry.
		We're a legacy industry, but I can assure you we're not your grandfather's railroad.
		We're not your father's railroad, and tomorrow's railroad is not going to be our railroad.
		And innovation and technology are that path forward.
		You talked about using detectors from the 60s.
		That's why we're developing inspection portals, machine visioning, acoustic bearing detectors, autonomous track inspection technology.
		All of that should be encouraged because there's a positive safety outcome.
seth moulton ▲ ● ▼		I've lost my time, but let's hope you do enough of that that it actually becomes the reputation of the industry.
unidentified		I'm with you.
seth moulton ▲ ● ▼		That's the opportunity before us.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I yield back.
unidentified		Chairman yields back.
		Mr. Rowan, you're recognized for five minutes.
		Thank you.
burgess owens ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Titus.
		Thank you for holding this hearing today as the committee prepares for this service transportation reauthorization.
		And of course, to thank our guests.
		I'm thrilled to be a new member of this subcommittee.
		Utah Boast has a rich whale history from hosting the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad at the Golden Spike ceremony in 1869 to our vision of a statewide inland port.
		Our goal is to be the crossroad of the West as we serve as a vital hub for freight exchange across the country.
		The rail industry is one I deeply admire.
		In my position as vice chair of the subcommittee of education workforce, I applaud America's freight whales and using their own funds on capital expenditures and upkeep expenses.
		While much of our country's infrastructure lags behind modern standards and needed upgrades, the freight rail is at the tip of the spear in this innovation.
		With an average compensation of over $149,000 and a medium tenure of railroad employees of 13 years, this industry continues to be the place where people want to work, enjoy working, and supporting a family with a large amount of student debt.
		As a member of the Education Workforce Committee, I look forward to working with you to better connect America's great talent to this essential industry.
		Mr. Jeffries, from the workforce perspective, what does your industry do differently and how can other industries struggle struggling with stagnant wages, employment retention, and low morale learn from the railroads?
unidentified		Thank you for the question.
		And you hit the nail on the head.
		Our employees, as Mr. Cassi made the point, our employees are the key reason that we are able to serve America's communities And customers so well and do it at such a high level of safety, and they deserve our thanks every day.
		And you're right that the average tenure for a rail employee is almost four times that of other industries, and so we're very proud of that, and we want to keep our folks, keep them online, and that's why we have fourth-generation railroaders working on our teams.
		So, I would put a few different pieces together.
		One, we've worked very hard over the past few years to build a positive momentum with our employees, whether that's scheduling agreements that provide a more predictable schedule for our operating crafts to better plan their lives, whether it's negotiating out paid sick benefits, of which over 93 percent of our employees now have, or whether it's getting a jump on collective bargaining so that our employees don't have to wait several years before they get their additional pay increases.
		And I'm very pleased that while the latest round of bargaining started just this past November, we already have five national agreements fully ratified in place.
		So, the employees of those five unions know what their salary increases are going to be for the next five years.
		They know their health care is going to be almost half that.
		The cost of their health care is going to cost almost half that of the general population, and they know that they're going to get additional days off early in their careers.
		Not to mention additional deals that have been done on a railroad by railroad basis, the lock-in agreements as well.
		And so, it's about listening to the employees, it's about understanding what their priorities are.
		Again, we have a new generation of railroaders coming onto the railroad that have different priorities, different desires from what they want to see.
		And a lot of that's about work-life balance and understandably being able to plan your life and schedule your life and be home for planned events.
		And so, that's a continuing effort, but I think that's a priority you hear from our executive level day in and day out, and that resonates, and we're seeing progress there.
burgess owens ▲ ● ▼		I just want to make a point.
		I mentioned earlier that the medium tenure of the railroad employees is 13 years.
		The private sector is three.
		So, there's something that you're doing right for sure.
		I want to add just one other question before we let this go.
		The efforts to cut red tape associated with has been successful in recent years.
		What more can be done to fast-track routine maintenance in replacement construction projects without ignoring environmental or historic preservation concerns?
		Mr. Jefferson.
unidentified		So, quickly, a couple different things.
		One, Congress has already taken a huge step, in fact, taken it twice when it directed the American Council on Historic Preservation to provide the same categorical exclusions to rail properties as it does highway properties when replacing old assets.
		However, the ACHP has continued to ignore Congress's direction, so they need another reminder.
		Two, when replacing existing assets, same infrastructure, whether it's rail, whether it's bridges.
		One, limited reviews, of course, but also looking at the impact of that project.
Ai Deployed For Repairs 00:06:57
unidentified		Some of the things we've seen also look at the impacts of the commodities that move over that project once complete.
		Commodities, we have a common carrier obligation to move.
		To us, that's not part of an appropriate environmental review.
		We should be talking about the project itself with set timelines and shot clocks.
burgess owens ▲ ● ▼		Okay, just want to wrap up by saying, Mr. Cassidy, we are going to do our best, education workforce, to prepare some of the greatest kids in our country for a great industry.
		So, just know we're on top of that.
		We're going to make sure we address it in a big way.
		Thank you so much, and I yield back.
unidentified		Jim Yields back.
		Ms. Fouchy.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Titus, for holding this hearing.
		And thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.
		Mr. Jeffries, are railroads currently using artificial intelligence to perform safety inspections?
		And if so, are they doing so in a wholly automated way?
		Are these AI programs being monitored by or used in conjunction with railroad safety inspectors?
		So the short answer is yes, AI is being deployed.
		And when you think about what happens every day on the network, whether it's via detectors, sensors, other information, we gather an immense amount of data.
		about not only the operations, the safety, but the service of our network.
		And so the more data we continue to gather, we can use AI through predictive analytics to determine when a product might begin to show wear and tear based on historical performance.
		Or in a service standpoint, we might be able to further calibrate delivery windows so that our customers can better have a sense of when we're going to arrive, plan their workday, have their employees ready.
		And so there's myriad ways, but certainly there's always a human element to that.
		So for example, if an inspection portal identifies a potential flaw in a train as it runs through it, that's when you have the employee then take a look at that and determine exactly what's going on.
		And then if there's a need to fix it, have the employee go out and fix it.
		So I would say we're very much in the embryonic stage of how AI might be able to be deployed, but we're certainly using it and as a way to really conduct in-depth analysis to what is a gargantuan amount of data we pull and will continue to pull.
		And secondly, I'm curious what standards, if any, AAR has in place or is planning to put in place regarding the use of artificial intelligence in railway safety.
		Building on what you just said.
		Not only at the AAR, but also we have an IT company called Rail Inc. located in Kerry, North Carolina.
		And I would say we're figuring out that path forward now.
		Right now, AI, like I said, we're in the embryonic stages.
		And once as we mature practices, at the industry level, there's always an opportunity to compare best practices and determine maybe what the best use of information may be or how to best address any issues identified by technology might be.
		And so AI specific, we don't have any sort of specific standard in place, but I would talk more about how technology plays into inspections, repairs, car repairs, et cetera.
		Absolutely, we do.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Cassidy, we just had a near shutdown of some of our nation's ports due to disagreement between labor and management over increased automation.
		From your perspective with Smart TD, in what ways do you see the freight railroads seeking to automate their safety work?
		Sure.
		Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
		So AI is becoming a unique challenge in that, you know, one, it's needed and it has its purpose, but two, it also is one of those things that we got to make sure happens in the light of day.
		And so to speak to your direct question about the long-term and ways that we can see AI, obviously there is an appetite or a growing desire for the railroads to eliminate onboard crew staff on the locomotives and the trains that are being operated.
		You look at the technologies being developed and the tasks that they're equipped to do and the way that the railroads are approaching it, you can see the writing on the wall for automation.
		Very quickly, as an example, CSX recently put out a letter to their training mentors that they are encouraged to reduce training time where PTC is present simply because they feel as though it relieves some of the pressure is put on the conductor, and that's not true.
		And when we're talking about artificial intelligence, it is deployed in the railroad.
		And to Mr. Jeffrey's point, we do have these car portals, we do have track inspection, but it's not being communicated to the people that need it most, and that's the workers.
		And I'll give you two very quick examples.
		In Lexington, Kentucky, a few weeks ago, we had a derailment.
		Technology that was deployed on a locomotive that is there through AI to scan the track identified a defect in the rail and said basically there was a wide gauge that was about to happen.
		And that defect went unacted on for five days.
		And then sure enough, a derailment occurred on that exact point of that rail where the AI detected it.
		To the flip side of that, when you talk about car portals, in Nebraska, we had a train with a broken wheel.
		It was a system train that went back and forth.
		There was at least five times that train in that particular car with a broken wheel went through the car portal and it was identified.
		We have the pictures.
		But it wasn't acted upon on the railroad until the actual wheel failed and we had a derailment that we went to it.
		So when we develop new technologies, we have innovation.
		We've got to make sure to chair, or to Congressman Neil's point and Congressman Moulton's point, that the information is going to where it needs to go, not just to a back room or a closet where it's hidden in the dark, but to the employees that hold that responsibility and hold that accountability to make sure that they stay safe, that the public stays safe, and that we're doing the right thing.
		AI is important, but it's got to be done in the light of day.
		Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
		That's my time.
		I yield back.
		Chair yields back.
		Mr. Burlson.
		Recognized for five minutes.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Mr. Baker, you didn't mention my district, so I'll say Southwest Missouri, there are 315 miles of track that's owned or operated by Shortline and Regional Rail.
		And you emphasized in your testimony that these are small businesses.
Regulating Rail Safety Efforts 00:15:37
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it's thrown out big corporations, but no, these are small businesses.
		And I think small businesses are the backbone of the American economy, vital to every state, including the state of Missouri.
		That being said, if you had to rank in order the most egregious, the most burdensome, and ridiculous regulations that your industry faces, what are the top three?
unidentified		Well, first of all, I apologize for not mentioning your district.
unidentified		I would have loved to, but I found Congress is very strict about the five minutes.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		You're welcome to come to Southwest Missouri.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		It's beautiful.
unidentified		I will happily accept that invitation.
		I would love to join.
		Maybe combine it with a visit to the chairman's district also.
		Sounds good.
		Boy, the most egregious, I will say on one, which is really more kind of red tape than a regulation, but on the CRISI grants, when they come, there are recipients of the grants who just ask for permission to use pre-award authority.
		That is basically to spend their own money at risk before the grant gets finalized just so they can get things going, buy materials, for instance, hire engineers, hire contractors, start the work.
		And it is very difficult to even get authority for pre-award approval from the FRA.
		For the life of me, I cannot figure out why that is anything other than an easy yes almost instantaneously.
		That's one.
		Conductor, well, dispatcher certifications, dispatcher and signalman certifications is a new rule that is coming that I believe is a textbook example of solving a problem that just doesn't exist.
		There's no data, no reason to believe that we had dispatchers or signalmen who are untrained or undertrained or causing accidents because of a lack of training.
		We find the certifications to be I mean at the end of the day you're employing these individuals and if they're not doing a good job or they're not safe then they're not going to have that job.
		That's right and there's perfect alignment of incentives.
		It's not like there's some world where we wouldn't want our own employees to be trained to do the job.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		Anybody that understands licensure laws and certification laws understands it's all about reducing the number of people that are eligible to work.
		Right.
		And so you can drive up labor costs.
		This is what happens in the health care system.
		Every work labor-related industry that wants to impose government certification requirements is just about reducing the labor pool.
unidentified		Yes.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		I wanted to ask, I believe Mr. Jeffries, in your testimony you highlighted the importance of Congress to oppose policies that harm the railroad's ability to operate safely and efficiently, such as requiring a two-person crew in freight locomotive cabs, which there has been zero quantitative evidence that a two-person crew would mandate actually enhance safety.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		So could you highlight what is the impact and the effect in the industry that this two-person rule has?
unidentified		So as I mentioned at the outset, locking in current operating practice in perpetuity, in our view, is never a good idea in industries that continue to evolve, whether it's the rail industry or any other industry.
		And your point is spot on.
		There's absolutely no data to show that that regulation advances safety.
		In 2016, the Obama administration and its preamble to the NPRM it put out acknowledged it much.
		In 2019, when the Trump administration withdrew it, they acknowledged as much.
		In 2020, on the campaign trail, President Biden made a campaign promise that he was going to put the rule back out.
		He did.
		Still a lack of data.
		Technology has only continued to advance.
		PTC has only continued to advance.
		Our view is that, look, train constants has always been a matter for collective bargaining between us and our employees.
		That's where it should be.
		There's no data to support another outcome.
		And we think locking in current operating practice is counterintuitive to the continued progress of the industry, especially when one of the core priorities identified by our employees is establishing more of a work-life balance.
		And when we can create a scenario when an employee works a scheduled shift, goes home to bed in their home every night, then we believe there's opportunities to continue to have that conversation with our unions to see if there are agreements that can be met in certain situations.
eric burlison ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		My time has expired.
		I yield back.
unidentified		Tillman yields back, Mr. Deleuzeo.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, gentlemen.
		I want to start on a place, I think, around safety where we agree in industry.
		Mr. Jeffries, you represent the big Class One railroads, Mr. Baker, the shoreline railroads, railroad crossing elimination program.
		And for folks at home, it's a pretty important program that can fund safety improvements at rail crossings.
		I will talk about my district of western Pennsylvania.
		Nearly half of my constituents live within a mile of the tracks.
		95% or so live within five miles.
		I hear from local government all the time about concerns and safety issues around crossings.
		Cheswick in my district, home to a crossing with the second highest accident rate in the northeastern United States.
		The Keys Rocks in my district, fifth worst rate in Pennsylvania.
		So I see you both nodding.
		Mr. Jeffries, I'll start with you.
		agree this program is important, can help improve safety for the big railroads.
		And Mr. Baker, I will ask you the same question about your railroads.
		100 percent.
		We supported it in development of the IIJA, and we look forward to supporting it in the next reauthorization effort.
		Very good.
		Mr. Baker?
		The program works.
		I think we only all wish there could be more of it.
		The biggest challenge with grade separations is just they are quite expensive.
		It is not hypothetical in my district, or I assume many of my colleagues, this really is a risk to our communities.
		I hear from so many local officials about this problem.
		We need to make sure we continue to fund this in a real way.
		Now, maybe where we aren't going to agree so much are broader rail safety efforts that have been quite bipartisan.
		I commend Mr. Nells from Texas, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Sykes, Mr. Rooley, who represents East Palestine.
		I represent the Western Pennsylvanians, also impacted by the terrible derailment in East Palestine with Norfolk Southern, almost two years ago.
		And yet we still have not had Congress take any action on rail safety.
		That is unacceptable to me and my constituents.
		I have heard Mr. Rooley talk about his constituents in East Palestine.
		I have heard it from Vice President Vance, President Trump.
		I heard it from the prior administration.
		They support these rail safety efforts, and yet nothing has happened.
		I don't accept that.
		And I guess a simple part of this is whether we are going to trust the rail industry to regulate themselves.
		So, Mr. Cassidy, let me start with you.
		You represent men and women who work in this industry, who work to keep the trains moving, moving safely and efficiently.
		Mr. Cassidy, do you trust the railroads to regulate themselves?
		Unfortunately, I do not.
		They make a lot of unilateral changes quite regularly that are the outcome of external pressures, whether that be Wall Street or scheduling or whatever that may be.
		And they find ways to capitulate to those pressures, which unfortunately end up cutting corners and that affect our people.
		When you look at long trains, when you look at the scheduling, when you look at attendance policies, all of these things have impacts on the workforce and ultimately the service.
		Two-person crew, if they have their way, Mr. Jeffries just said it, they don't feel the need for the keep the conductor.
		But if we remove the conductor off the cab of the locomotive, we do have a history that shows two-person crews and the conductor deliver a level of safety.
		To remove that person, you are going to equate to risk.
		You are going to bring a new risk into it.
		And so we have to make sure that we have guidelines and guardrails that we are doing the right things because they are going to have impacts on the American public.
		When you look at attendance policies, just an example, last week, I believe it was maybe two, BNSF decided to cut and slash their attendance policy without any conversation or consideration.
		Work-life balance is being used up here as though it is a gift, but it is not a gift.
		It is a hammer over our workers' head.
		And so we have got to make sure that we are doing the right things for the workers and, in turn, do the right things for the American public.
		We want and need the railroads to succeed.
		Please don't get me wrong.
		Rich railroads work well for our membership.
		Successful railroads work well for our membership.
		We need them to do the right thing.
		But unfortunately, we cannot trust them to do that because there are pressures that they capitulate to, and we can't account for that.
		Well, Mr. Cassidy, you made a point about railroads succeeding being good for your members and being good for our country.
		We have to move goods safely and quickly.
		I am not willing to use my constituents as collateral damage in the way of profits.
		We have to move things on the rails safely.
		And to the point of trusting the railroads to regulate themselves, in the year after the derailment, the Class 1 railroads derailment rate increased.
		I will read you a quote about those figures.
	Quote, these figures show the railroads industry's safety standards are getting worse.
	We can reverse the trend by passing the Railroad Safety Act immediately.
	That was Senator Vance, who is now our Vice President.
	Let's pass the legislation and protect my community, protect communities like ours all over the country.
	Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Mr. Fong, you're recognized for five minutes.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I wanted to ask a few questions of Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Baker.
	I certainly share your perspective.
	It was important that CARB withdrew their petition to implement an unworkable in-use locomotive rule, and I think that's important for our supply chain.
	Didn't want to ask if there were other state or federal policies that are going to hinder rail operations in California specifically.
	Well, thank you for the question.
	And if I could just comment quickly, 2022, the 2023 derailment rate was significantly lower than 2022.
	In the first 10 months, it's lower of 24, it was lower than 23.
	2.77 incidents per million train miles.
	That's not good enough.
	It should be zero, but progress continues to be made on that front.
	And I just wanted to make sure the record reflected that.
	And thank you for your support on CARB's misguided efforts.
	You were a leader in the efforts in calling out while noble in the pursuit, the complete unrealistic attempt and illegal attempt for CARB to do what it did.
	Look, at the end of the day, California and CARB in particular, they seem to be a model for bureaucratic overreach time and time again.
	And our concern, especially when it's the rail industry, if CARB acts and they're allowed to act, that's not a state regulation.
	It's effectively a federal regulation because we're a nationwide interconnected network.
	Now, fortunately, that's why the STB, Surface Transportation Board, has strong, strong, strong preemption authority, and that was the second law that CARB was violating trying to regulate this.
	But I would be happy to sit down with your team and get into more specifics on individual regs.
	But thank you for your support on the loco emissions piece.
	Thank you.
	I would say that the CARB rule was so egregious and so kind of terrifying for the shortline industry about essentially threatening to put us out of business.
	We are again thrilled that it was withdrawn.
	Appreciate your support in particular on helping with that.
	I do think that Congress would be wise to consider taking a look at the Clean Air Act and the authority that's given to CARB and changing, at least limiting that in scope so that at least on industries that are clearly meant to be regulated at the federal level, not the state level, like railroads, that we can't revisit this nightmare the next time they have an administration that might be willing to approve such a waiver.
	Absolutely.
	Certainly, we all know that rail is a key component of the supply chain.
	That is not only in California but across the country.
	Certainly, that's part of our concern about CARB's rule.
	I did want to ask: how can freight rail infrastructure be expanded or optimized to accommodate the increasing demand and supply chains and capacity?
	Of course, what are the key rail corridors in California that can be improved?
	How can we expand rail capacity at the ports to create some coordination to reduce congestion and improve the flow of goods?
	So, one of the common themes we've heard, I think, is through sensible permitting reform to let dollars get put to work more quickly in a more efficient way.
	And that's really just about setting timelines, recognizing what should be pre-existing categorical exclusions and avoiding unnecessary costs through inflationary delay.
	In our ports, we've seen significant efforts to increase information sharing among the supply chain stakeholders.
	That's key.
	The Barstow Intermodal Gateway in Southern California, massive investment occurring.
	Getting that approved so it can be built quickly, get those containers out of the Southern California basin quickly, let them be built into trains and dispersed throughout the country out in a big open space.
	Key, there's other massive projects like that, and really the Surface Transportation Board, who I mentioned before, exercising its permitting its preemption authority over both rail projects and our customers' projects.
	Mr. Baker.
	I'd add, again, at the risk of harping on it, the CRISI program is extraordinarily effective at investing in shortline infrastructure, including in California.
	The Sierra Northern recently received one for building out a big rail loading yard.
	And so, further support of programs like that and having it move faster, I think will accomplish exactly what you're looking for.
	I appreciate that.
	I think my time is running out, but I appreciate the work that's being done in the rail industry to move our products and our goods across the country and get them from the ports and to our homes and businesses and farms.
	So, thank you, and I yield back.
	Chairman yields back.
	Mr. Garcia, you're recognized for five minutes.
jesus chuy garcia ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member to our witnesses here today.
jesus chuy garcia ▲ ● ▼		I represent Chicago, the nation's busiest freight hub.
Government Buy for Rail Innovation 00:09:36
jesus chuy garcia ▲ ● ▼		One of every four U.S. freight trains passes through Chicago.
		That's about 500 freight trains and 800 passenger and commuter trains every day.
		I was glad to see that the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program, better known as CREATE, received two important grants from U.S. DOT.
		Nearly $300 million will go to improvements on a three-mile elevated rail corridor on Chicago's south side.
		And another $43 million will be invested on building a great separation along 65th Street and Harlem Avenue across the street from my district.
		Together, this funding will help relieve congestion along Chicago's rail network, improve supply chain efficiency, and make communities safer as well.
		This is made possible through the collaboration between public sector and Class 1 railroads.
		Mr. Jeffries, can you speak about how important programs like CREATE are for our national rail and freight network?
unidentified		Well, thank you for that question.
		It was great to see you at the event in December on the south side of Chicago.
		They're critically important, and CREATE is the model program for the rest of the country.
		And we often get approached from other communities of, hey, we want to do a CREATE.
		And we explain the commitment from not only the freight railroads, but the commuter railroads, Amtrak, the city, the county, the state, the USDOT, and how we've all worked together to identify a discrete set of very large projects that different parties benefit from at different times.
		But everyone has skin in the game.
		Everyone has maintained a commitment, absolutely critically important.
		And we're thrilled with the outcome of last fall's awards.
		And I'll just give you a quick example.
		Our leader of CREATE in Chicago was invited to Southern California to talk about the CREATE program.
		And he said it dawned on him that the close to 100 officials who were there representing local governments, it was probably the first time they'd been in a room together.
		And so the bount of coordination in Chicagoland is to be applauded and something we're very proud of.
jesus chuy garcia ▲ ● ▼		Let's keep it going by all means.
		Mr. Cassie, changing gears, I appreciate you mentioning high-speed rail in your testimony.
		Thousands of miles of railroad tracks crisscross Chicago, making rail essential to supporting a robust economy in the Midwest.
		It supports thousands of good paying union jobs.
		It connects small towns to big cities, connects people to schools and jobs, and connects businesses to commodities as well.
		That's why high-speed rail is an exciting prospect for the Midwest.
		Not only would it spur economic development, it would lower carbon emissions and create thousands of good jobs.
		A commission in Illinois is currently studying the Chicago to St. Louis route and will produce a statewide plan.
		Can you address how transformational a high-speed rail system in the Midwest would be and what role can the federal government play to support development plans for high-speed rail?
unidentified		Sure, thank you for the question.
		High-speed rail would be absolutely transformational for the rail industry.
		And for all the reasons that you addressed, I mean, the efficiency and the effectiveness and the benefits for the American public are exponential and hard to be quantified in such a short statement like this.
		But for the rail workers as well, to know that we would have the opportunity to see the economy and the infrastructure grow is something that we haven't seen for a long time.
		That's why Bright Line West is so encouraging, because the more we look at transportation in our country, the more we recognize that the highway system isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing anymore, that it's too crowded, that it's not efficient as the way it should be.
		High-speed rail gives us the opportunity to alleviate a lot of those pressures.
		But we need the government's help to encourage those construction projects.
		We need the government's help to fund those projects.
		And we need the government's buy-in on the rail industry to make sure that we are expanding that.
		Kind of like what's been talked about already this morning.
		Is that for whatever reason, and I know Mr. Jeffries talked about this isn't your granddad's railroad, but the public view, when they see the railroad system, we have been in the background for so long that they don't view it as the next step.
		For some reason, aviation gets this whatever put on it to make it seem as though that is the ultimate future.
		But the ultimate future doesn't have to be there.
		We have opportunities in the rail space to take people where they are not easily able to go, smaller routes, longer routes, faster routes.
		High-speed rail is absolutely critical in development for our country, and we just need the government's buy-in and we need financial support and support across the board.
jesus chuy garcia ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
jesus chuy garcia ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chair, I yield back.
unidentified		Gentleman yields back.
		Mr. Begich, you're recognized for five minutes.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		My first question is to Mr. Baker.
		So, Mr. Baker, you noted in your testimony that 100 percent of Alaska's rail is shortline rail.
		Alaskans have long sought a rail connection that would tie Alaska to the rest of the North American rail network.
		In your view, what steps should we consider to support such a connection?
		That's a fabulous question.
		I mean, the current route of connecting is quite elaborate and involves ferries and is not sort of realistic for where I think you would like to take the state and the country.
		A project like that is really a mega grant.
		And so I think it would be important for Congress to continue grant programs like Infra and RAISE and MEGA that really contemplate some of these maybe not quite moonshot, but big deal infrastructure programs.
		There are a lot of short-line projects, including some on the existing Alaska Railroad infrastructure, where $5 or $10 or $20 million can really move the dial, and we do a lot of those, and we're very proud of that.
		A project like you're talking about is sort of exponentially more than that.
		And I do think that the country and the people of the country have appetite for that sort of thing.
		And the project you are talking about is a great example.
		I would be thrilled to support it.
		Thank you.
		This is a question for Mr. Jeffries.
		Mr. Jeffries, in your testimony, you mentioned that in real terms, inflation-adjusted real terms, costs of moving freight on rail have declined by 42 percent since 1980.
		Do you have any information?
		And if not, could you at some future time provide this committee with information on what has happened to the cost of new rail construction over that same period of time?
		Has that also trended down or has that gone up in real terms?
		I wish.
		Unfortunately, no, it hasn't due to cost of materials due to inflationary pressures as every other industry is seeing.
		And if I could be so bold, I would expect my colleague, Mr. DeLazio, can comment on it a little more sophisticatedly than I might be able to.
		No, definitely.
		Thank you.
		Thank you, Congressman.
		Thank you, Ian.
		So material pricing has gone up, labor pricing has gone up, equipment pricing, everything has gone up almost exponentially.
		And we talked earlier about the grant time process about these grants.
		So a lot of times contractors and our consulting engineer members are involved in the initial stages of putting together budget pricing for some of these grants.
		And we do that with good faith, hoping that they are going to escalate maybe a year out.
		And then we get a call three years later that, hey, the grant got approved, and the price now is a third of what it should be.
		So, yes, to answer your question, everything is we see that continually going up.
		Then this is a question for anyone who might have an answer to it.
		Do you have any suggestions on how we can drive down the cost of new rail construction?
		Not to hit on the same theme, but I would say getting projects approved more quickly to allow the money to be put in the ground more quickly, not to circumvent any appropriate reviews, but let's just put some certainty into the process so that the money you have now is used and you don't need twice as much 10 years from now when the project is approved.
		Just to chime in there, so I think with new technologies, especially on the contracting side, whether it's new tools, new equipment that's helping us be more efficient and be able to build track faster, I mean, that definitely is a way to lower the costs.
		Very good.
		And does anyone here today know how the Tier 1 network was originally financed?
		Was it government grants?
		Was it private money?
		The ultimate public-private partnership.
		Okay.
		I think it's fantastic that we are hearing about high-speed rail, rail that goes 200 miles an hour.
		It is great for passengers.
		There is a lot of innovation on the freight side.
		Let's connect Alaska to the North American rail network so that we can be a part of this same success story.
Modernizing Rail Safety 00:15:52
unidentified		Thank you, and I yield back.
		Gentleman yields back.
		Mr. Cohen, you are recognized.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the ILJA, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, also known as the Biden Infrastructure Bill.
		I prefer to call it the Biden-Cohen Bill, has provided an unprecedented opportunity to modernize our rail system, strengthen our economy, and improve connectivity for millions of Americans.
		One program I would like to highlight is the Corridor Identification and Development, also known as the Corridor ID program, which has awarded $500,000 to study the feasibility of a passenger rail corridor connecting Memphis to Nashville and then on to Chattanooga and to Atlanta.
		This Sunbelt Atlantic connector will connect major population centers, fostering economic growth and reducing traffic congestion in our region.
		Tennessee and Georgias alike are eager for the eventual completion of this project and hopefully can move to the next phase expeditiously.
		I also remain committed to enhancing the passenger experience at Amtrak.
		Mr. Garcia didn't mention the Amtrak service that goes through Memphis into New Orleans.
		And as a kid, I rode the Panama Limited and the city of New Orleans, and we went up to Chicago quite a few times and down to New Orleans as well.
		We have had great food on some of those, particularly the Panama Limited, and they had the best service, a Pullman train.
		But they had big, thick steaks and big, thick French toast, and they don't have that anymore.
		So I've introduced two bills, the Train Food Act and the Trains Eat Act, which aim to restore and improve onboard dining services and long distance routes.
		I think it would improve the experience and the ridership.
		When reauthorizing surface transportation programs for Amtrak, we must not neglect the passenger experience, quality dining service essential to attracting and retaining riders, making rail travel enjoyable, and an alternative to driving or flying.
		Finally, I want to address a pressing issue in America and in Memphis, cargo theft.
		Unfortunately, sadly, Memphis, which has a large logistics hub and cargo, has seen cargo theft spike alarmingly in recent years, posing threats to businesses and supply chains.
		Addressing this problem is not just a local concern, it is a national concern.
		And I believe Mr. Jeffries, but even more so Mr. Baker, discussed trucks and your competition with trucks.
		Obviously, you don't like trucks.
		Trucks have 80 percent of the cargo theft, so you like that.
		But it's a great problem, and in Memphis, we're trying to deal with it, and we need more solutions.
		Mr. Jeffries, the FBI has developed a task force composed of members of the U.S. Marshal Service, Memphis Police, Shelby County Sheriff's Office.
		What additional areas of collaboration could be established between freight railroads, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to enhance preemptive measures and effectively combat cargo theft on trains?
unidentified		Well, thank you for highlighting that, and that's a priority of ours, is making headway because not only is it an issue in Memphis, it's an issue across several parts of the country, and frankly, the epitome of interstate crime.
		It is a federal issue that we need federal attention to.
		And one of the most frustrating things we have seen is that arrests are made and prosecutions don't occur.
		And that is why we are advocating, and hopefully this task force will draw some attention to getting some resources behind prosecutions and putting folks behind bars and moving up the chain because this is absolutely an organized effort, a sophisticated effort, and railroads are investing on their own to increase deterrence, increase monitoring and vigilance.
		But it is going to take everybody working together because the problem is not going away.
		And we will look forward to partnering with you on this.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		I know in the 1880s when Jesse and Frank were doing their job on the trains, the trains jumped into it and hired the Pinkertons.
		So you need to get the 21st century Pinkertons on this.
unidentified		And if I may, Congressman, we certainly view trucks as our big competitors, but we would absolutely view we are on the same page as them on cargo theft issues.
unidentified		We would not wish theft on even our harshest competitors.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		But if you had a choice.
unidentified		Please stay away from the trains.
unidentified		Yes.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Mr. Jeffries, this quarter I talked about, Memphis onto Atlanta, could do a lot to improve congestion and the environment as well, reducing emissions.
		How can freight railroad partners work with passenger rail projects to advance these climate goals and equitable development?
unidentified		So when we have seen these projects work well, of which there are numerous examples around the country, all stakeholders get together at the front end and sit down and talk about desired outcomes.
		And so that's the municipality, that's the state, that's the passenger entity, that is the effective freight railroad, and talk about, okay, what do we want to achieve?
		What capacity is necessary, what investment is necessary to ensure that capacity, and who is going to pay for it?
		And so.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		I have got four seconds, and I want to ask Mr. Cassidy something.
		You talked about the ultimate future and where we should look at transportation.
		Elon says it's Mars.
		Should we put all that money into planting a flag on Mars or should we maybe do it somewhere like Memphis?
unidentified		Thank you for the question.
		I mean, you know, I'm intrigued by the thought of going to Mars, but the reality is when we're talking about investments in taxpayer money, the investments here in the country, and the biggest benefit is moving them to where they need to go safely and efficiently.
		And there's no better opportunity than the railroad system.
		And high-speed rail, in my opinion, is the greatest opportunity for funding to do something meaningful for the people of America to make an impact on the economy and the infrastructure as a whole.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
steve cohen ▲ ● ▼		Unless you're Ralph Cramden's wife, you're not going to the moon.
unidentified		Go back to the balance of my time.
		Gentleman Yields.
		Mr. Kennedy, you recognize for five minutes.
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Chair Webster and Ranking Member Titus.
		Appreciate you convening this committee and thanks to the witnesses.
		You've been here for a while and I appreciate your willingness to elucidate these important issues.
		The Uinta Basin Railway is an important project in Utah's third district.
		And my district is home to the Uinta Basin with its major oil fields.
		There are several crude by rail projects in the works of my district, and that is one of them.
		And it's an opportunity for us to reduce truck traffic on dangerous roads.
		These are mountain roads with terrible weather sometimes and move that crude oil out of the basin and move goods into the basin.
		So with that in mind, Mr. Baker, I was interested in your take on this.
		What are some of the major regulatory issues that face the railroad industry generally as it relates to American energy and what steps we can take to enhance energy dominance in the United States of America and Utah, my Congress, congressional districts specifically?
unidentified		The Uinta Basin project is very exciting.
		It would be served by a shortline railroad, which would then connect to Union Pacific and connect it to the world.
		There was a big regulatory threat to that particular project.
		As you know, the STB Surface Transportation Board approved it with its environmental analysis.
		It was extremely exhaustive and I thought impressive analysis.
		And then a court overturned it and said that they didn't properly consider essentially the downstream effects of how the oil would be used, which is Ian referenced a similar issue earlier today.
		That was just re-argued in front of the Supreme Court, and I think the outcome is heading in a direction that makes sense where the reviews will now be limited.
		And this is to answer your question.
		The important outcome is that reviews be limited to the actual project rather than sort of a holistic view of how every commodity is going to be used, because if we do that, then we'll never build anything.
		And there are frankly not a lot of brand new rail lines that get built in this country.
		The Uinta Basin one is an exciting one.
		I'm sure Mr. Delawisio's members would be very excited to get to work building it.
		And we're excited to get to work moving it.
		And the folks in Uinta Basin are excited to get to work selling it.
		And probably most importantly, this stuff already moves, like you said, on trucks on dangerous mountain roads.
		Moving it by rail is a better outcome for literally everybody.
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		And with that, Mr. DeLosio, would you tell us what that would mean if you were able to participate, you and those that you represent, were able to participate in building that railway?
unidentified		Thank you, Congressman.
unidentified		I'm sorry, could you please repeat that?
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		What would that mean to you if we could, you and your industry, if we could actually enhance the start to build that railway that we're seeking to build there in my district?
unidentified		Thank you.
		Well, it means a lot.
		I mean, our member companies are all, a lot of them are small family-owned companies.
		A lot of them are larger companies, but to get those funds, to be able to get those projects and get involved, I mean, all that money that is spent to get those companies out there, get the workforce on the ground, get their equipment on the ground, start laying material, that all trickles down to the feed their families.
		I mean, it's so vital.
		I mean, we have so many members all across this country that are just itching to build more track.
		I mean, we just need help to be able to do that and do it safely and start get those trains on them and get them moving.
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're itching to help you accomplish that goal because it would be outstanding for us.
		Mr. Jeffries, I had a question for you as to along these lines.
		Efforts to cut red tape associated with these infrastructure projects, approval, and construction have been successful in recent years.
		But what more can still be done to fast-track routine maintenance and replacement construction projects without ignoring environmental or historical preservation concerns?
unidentified		Thank you for the question.
		So, two things.
		One, and Congress has already told the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation to do this, provide the same categorical exclusions to replacement of historic assets as you do highways.
		Again, Congress has spoken twice on this.
		The independent agency has not yet acted, so maybe third time is a charm.
		And then you kind of gave me the answer with your question for routine maintenance, routine replacement.
		Again, categorical exclusions that limit the actual construction versus that which flows over it versus other extraneous activities.
mike kennedy ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for those responses.
		And once again, thank you to all of you for being here with us.
		And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
unidentified		The gentleman yields back.
unidentified		Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for five minutes.
hank johnson ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And thank you, Madam Ranking Member, for hosting this critical hearing today.
		And thank you to the witnesses for your time and for your testimony.
		The United States leads the world with the most extensive rail transport network spanning approximately 160,000 miles.
		Many of our communities, especially in regions like my home state of Georgia, started with a railroad style.
		Entire towns were built around these vital pieces of infrastructure because we understand their importance.
		Yet, today it operates without consistent long-term funding required to maintain and expand this essential infrastructure.
		As we all know, climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and rail emerges as a transformative solution.
		Our system provides the safest, most energy-efficient, and environmentally sustainable mode of transportation.
		By alleviating traffic congestion and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, rail plays a vital role in creating a cleaner future.
		Its ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions far surpasses road and air transport.
		Without the security of long-term funding, however, it's a challenge to build on the progress achieved from long ago and through President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure law.
		Mr. Cassidy, expanding and modernizing our rail network to reach more communities with improved service means creating good paying jobs, fostering domestic manufacturing, and ensuring our infrastructure meets the demands of the 21st century.
		This effort requires significant investments in projects all across the country with funding such as the $52.79 billion allocated by the Federal Railroad Administration for 594 safety rail improvement projects.
		Can you explain what it would mean for communities if funding, if federal funding like this was not available?
unidentified		Sure.
		Thank you for the question, Congressman.
		I knew at one point I was going to get some sort of economical question.
		I want to remind everybody, I am a locomotive engineer, so I am going to take my biggest swing here.
		But railroading is an industry worth investing in.
		We are absolutely critical to moving forward with everything that we do, whether it is passenger or freight.
		You know, there was discussion about the UNITA Basin.
		We as labor support the notion that there is no safer or better way to move commodities on the planet Earth than through our rail system.
		And so everything that we depend on on our day-to-day lives, the food on the stores, the technology in Best Buy or wherever else you may go, odds are that's touched a train at some point.
		And so if we don't fund the railroad systematically, we stand to lose a lot of the benefits we have in our daily lives.
		And on the flip side of that, we also stand the opportunity to not have the safest work environment that we should have.
		Funding allows us to do all of the right things and to expand in a world where we need expansion so that we can make things easier to get to, so that we can have products more readily available and hopefully, frankly, cheaper to buy.
hank johnson ▲ ● ▼		And you create more economic development.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		You create more jobs.
		You have more workers.
		You have more good paying jobs.
		And in turn, it recycles.
		And all of the good benefits of that pay out to everybody.
hank johnson ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
		It has been said at this hearing, Mr. Cassidy, that the number of derailments has gone down over the last few years.
		But according to the Federal Railroad Administration data, the number of derailments has increased year over year in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
		Mr. Cassidy, as Congress and the new administration prepare for the new surface transportation bill, what key protections should be prioritized to enhance rail safety for workers and passengers?
unidentified		Sure.
		There's a lot.
		And basically, I'll start with the Rail Enhancement Safety Act that Congressman Nels introduced last year.
		It hit a lot of those priorities that we need to do to make sure that safety is heading down the right path.
		You know, the data in this industry obviously can be interpreted differently.
		Clearly, Mr. Jeffries and myself are of different opinions on where we are at with the derailment rate or frequency in this country.
		But we need to take a real look at what is going on and not accept that we are increasing or we are running flat.
		We are not doing enough to stop these accidents.
		To ranking Member Titus' point earlier, our organization personally went on nine investigations with the National Transport Safety Board.
Need for Rail Safety Innovations 00:03:05
unidentified		All of those are indicative of the fact that we need to do more with safety in the rail space.
		We need to take a look at the crew staffing.
		We need to take at long trains.
		We need to take a look at technology.
		We need to take a look at detectors.
		We need to do a lot of things to make sure the innovation is welcome in the industry, but it's done so in a way that others have the ability to make an input that's in the interest of all stakeholders.
		But then we put the proper guidelines where we need to to ensure that minimum level of safety, but allow them to do the development they need to do in the interest of workers, in the interest of public.
		But we can collaborate on that.
		We have to collaborate on that.
		And I do think that's our challenge going forward.
hank johnson ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		And I appreciate the grace of the chair.
		And I yield back.
unidentified		Chairman yields back.
unidentified		Mr. Starber, you're recognized for five minutes.
pete stauber ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		Mr. Cassidy, I have to correct you.
		You said you're just a railroad engineer.
		No, you're more than that.
		You're an expert.
		That's why you're here today.
		That's why you're sharing your vision of a safer, more reliable railroad.
		So please accept my correction.
		You're more than just a railroad engineer, and we appreciate you all.
		Mr. Jeffries, you know, I had some comments here prepared, but you talked about some very important things on NEPA reforms and railroad construction and fixing.
		Why do you have to wait seven to nine, 11 years for the government to put forth their okay for you to move forward with construction?
		That's all money and all time that's unnecessary.
		And so I'm going to encourage you as this next Congress gets going, we're going to look at NEPA reviews.
		And you said something that I totally agree with.
		We're not cutting corners.
		We're going to keep the same environmental standards, same labor standards on these projects.
		We care about the environment too.
		And so that I think you all can have a strong voice in those reviews.
		So please be present and we may ask you to be a witness and such.
		It should not, and I'll go to the mining issue for just one moment.
		It takes on average 29 years to open a mine in the United States of America.
		Canada and Australia and others, two to three years.
		Come on, we can do better than that.
		And I ask for your professional voices during that time.
		You also talked about prosecutions and arrests.
		So being a former law enforcement officer, that's one of the things that frustrated me the most, and it still frustrates the American law enforcement community.
		You could have your railroad police arrest these organized criminals and they get a slap on the hand, even if that, and they're out the next night doing the same thing to your rail car, stealing the products off there.
Dramatic Warning On Rail Safety 00:13:29
pete stauber ▲ ● ▼		And so if we don't have prosecutions, it's going to continue and continue and continue.
		I hope and I trust that this new administration, they're going to crack down on rail thefts because it's getting big and you all know that.
		I mean, you're adding more railroad police, et cetera.
		But I'm one to stand with you on the prosecutions because when we don't prosecute that, guess who pays more for the end product?
		We, the American people.
		And so I'm absolutely with you on that.
		I want to say something that I think is really important.
		So I came from the county government in St. Louis County, northern Minnesota.
		So when we had issues with railroad crossing or safety, the community and the rail professionals always were there to help us out to make sure that that crossing was the safest it can be.
		I want to just tell you that I understand safety is your first, second, and third priority, not only for the public, but for the passengers, et cetera.
		So I've been on this community since, or this committee rather, since day one.
		And we're all almost on the same page.
		And when we do that, we can move mountains.
		And I think that as we continue in this Congress, let's have that discussion.
		Because I think rail is a huge part of our mode of transportation, amongst others, right?
		I mean, we have room for the aviation community, certainly aviation.
		We have room for using our ships and ports, et cetera.
		Certainly we can do that.
		And I would be remiss if I didn't say that Duluth, Minnesota has the most inland port in the country.
		With that being said, so we also, when we look at passenger safety, crew safety, etc., we're also, I think, where we can up it a little bit is training for our first responders across the nation.
		Because if there's an incident, it's oftentimes in the rural communities where those first responders are the first ones there.
		We have to really get really good at notifying and preparing and training for our rural first responders.
		And that includes our Native American communities because we're going through a lot of tribal lands too.
		We need to make sure that we prepare them so that in case there is an incident, that we're well prepared and that we can reduce the harm.
		And so for a legislator like me, I'm looking for all of you for that expertise advice.
		So when we talk about rail safety, when we need to put legislation, that you're at the table.
		I really appreciate the expertise in this panel.
		And thank you for your time for coming this afternoon.
		Mr. Chair, yield back.
unidentified		Gentleman yields back.
unidentified		Mr. Ryan, you're recognized for five minutes.
pat ryan ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I'm excited to join this subcommittee for the first time.
		And thank you to the ranking member as well.
		Thank you to our witnesses for now many hours of your time this morning.
		I proudly represent the Hudson Valley region, which is north of New York City.
		A significant amount of railroad traffic, both freight and passenger, including 123 miles of CSX-run freight on the west side of the Hudson River.
		Many areas and crossings specifically in my district, as has been discussed, desperately need safety enhancements and investment and redesigns from traffic signal upgrades to prevent congestion backups, roadway redesigns, and enhanced warning systems, even basic signage, which we're lacking at many of these crossings.
		For example, the town of Sogretti's in my district, which is an entirely ungated crossing, lacks any warning lights.
		And in 2017, a constituent riding in a taxi was killed when her taxi driver missed a stop sign and drove right into the path of an oncoming train.
		A simple fix like warning signage would have helped avoid this tragic incident.
		CSX operates, as I said, trains throughout many densely populated urban areas in my district, including the city of Kingston, my hometown, which has 35 on average freight trains a day running through the heart of a pretty busy city carrying a lot of things, but including waste, petroleum, industrial chemicals, and other potentially harmful substances.
		We greatly appreciate the role CSX plays in our economy, as has been discussed here.
		But it's been a repeated point of challenge.
		I was also in county government, like my colleague said, to get cooperation from CSX to really work with us on that.
		So I'll continue to focus on that.
		In fact, in the town of Ulster last year, a constituent of mine was struck and killed by a CSX train due to a lack of any pedestrian crossing signage.
		So I want to work in good faith in a bipartisan way to figure out how to address things like this.
		In an encouraging sign, and you mentioned this in your testimony, Mr. Jeffries, your written testimony, the city of Port Jervis, also in my district, just received one of the Railroad Crossing Elimination RCE grants thanks to funding from the bipartisan infrastructure legislation.
		This was another very problematic intersection where a few years ago someone was struck and killed.
		And this funding will be a game changer to help address that.
		So my first question is to you, Mr. Jeffries, just to ask on that point of the RCE grants and other similar grants, can you just talk about the value of that and would ask your help to work at a local tactical level in a constructive way to speed up all these.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		Thank you for the question.
		So pedestrian and motor vehicle accidents at crossings are the toughest safety challenge we continue to face.
		We've seen dramatic decreases in every other type of accident.
		And so that starts, first of all, with every opportunity, eliminating the crossing.
		And so with the grant you referred to, that's huge.
		And, you know, while we wish we had endless sources of funds to separate all high-impact crossings, that the reality is we don't.
		And so secondary, we've got to have the best safety equipment there.
		Warning devices through the Section 130 program.
		Driver education, public education through partners such as Operation Lifesaver, who, if you haven't done any work with them, would certainly love to get you involved with that.
		Making the public aware when you see tracks, think trains.
		It's a common sense statement, but not something that's always reality.
		And I would love to work with you and your office to continue, one, to prioritize the two programs I mentioned, and two, look for ways to further educate the public and get that out there, because it is an immensely avoidable tragedy that happens too often and something that we're invested in making further progress on.
pat ryan ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate that.
		And I think as we enter this new administration and the new moment we're in, I think it's very important to note grants like the RCE grants and other life-saving funding in the bipartisan infrastructure law should not be politicized.
		And I hope, and many of you said this in your both your spoken testimony and written, that we can at least agree that maintaining, if not bolstering funding to those programs benefits everyone, including the industry, so that they're not having to invest fully on their own in that regard.
		I'm an Irish Catholic guy, so I'm going to do my best with your name, sir.
		I know I apologize.
		Mr. DeLuisio, is that okay?
unidentified		No, that was pretty good.
pat ryan ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		All right.
		I apologize.
		In terms of your membership and yourself and your experience, what are the challenges that you all have faced in actually installing and driving through projects?
		Say we have funding.
		How do we drive through?
		Oh, I'm sorry.
		I'm over, Mr. Chair.
		I apologize.
		I got too excited.
		I'm going to have to yield back, and would love to follow up with all of you on follow-up questions.
unidentified		I appreciate that.
		And please feel free.
		Afterwards, I'll give you my information.
		I'm happy to talk to you.
		We're actually neighbors.
		I live in northern New Jersey, so I'm not far from here.
pat ryan ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry to hear you're from New Jersey.
pat ryan ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
unidentified		Joe Manila's back.
		Mr. Mahon, you're recognized.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		A lot different from New Jersey.
		I'm from Kansas.
		But New Jersey, Kansas, California all rely on rail.
		And I appreciate you all and what you do.
		My state, we have 4,600 miles of rail track, runs the gamut.
		My district is the western two-thirds of Kansas, except for the counties around Wichita.
		And so we need good rail networks, class ones and shortline, to get our ag products out of fields, out of packing plants, and to the mouths that are going to feed them.
		So I appreciate you all and what you do.
		As you all know, this committee is beginning to work on the next service transportation reauthorization, which is a big thing that we're going to focus on this year.
		Pretty high-level question, but for you, Mr. Jeffries, can you highlight the areas that you think we should be targeting for improvements to ensure that goods, people, or ag products are moved safe in an efficient manner?
		How would you like, you know, there's going to be limited resources, but in your view, how should we be targeting those funds?
		So I would say there's a few different things.
		One is maintaining these grant programs that do have such strong bipartisan support in allowing our public partners and our shortlines to receive those funds on a merit-based basis to invest to create and expand capacity to serve customers like all the good folks in your community.
		Two, I would say you can make those programs run better, either by Congress or the administration by getting dollars out the door more quickly.
		We talked about delays, by permitting reforms, allowing projects and money to be put to work more quickly.
		And then on the operational side, creating a more outcomes-based regulatory environment.
		And I know there are differing views on this, but I think there's a lot of common ground about how do we achieve the best safety outcome in a way that allows for innovation, frees up the network, allows goods to continue to move, takes people out of risky situations.
		And at the end of the day, promoting American competitiveness in a way that encourages investment, encourages goods to move, encourages products to move out of your state to other states and to other countries at the end of the day.
		So we're not looking for funds primarily, but the Highway Trust Fund sure is, and that needs to be fixed in a dramatic way.
		That's right.
		Yep.
		Our whole transportation network, as we know, is interconnected, which is important at this committee.
		Next question for you, Mr. Baker.
		You know, Kansas is served by 14 shortline and regional railroads.
		We have 2,000 miles of track.
		Shortlines play a vital role in the network.
		In your opinion, what are the biggest barriers that our shortline operators are facing right now?
		The biggest barrier shortlines face is a lack of funds, right?
		And it goes back to the origin story.
		The reason there are so many shortline railroads in Kansas is because if you go back a couple of generations, those were the unprofitable, unloved, kind of marginal branch lines of larger railroads.
		Luckily, rather than being abandoned, they got sold to shortlines.
		And those folks are hustling, scrapping, knocking on every door, working every day to try to keep those railroads in existence and let them survive and thrive.
		And it's largely working, but we need help.
		We are not like the Class One's totally self-sufficient.
		We are not too proud to say we do need Congress's help.
		Blessedly, Congress has long been very supportive of shortlines, particularly folks from Kansas.
		You know, now Senator Moran has been a longtime, very aggressive supporter of shortlines, and you have been too.
		The CRISI program, again, is the single most important program under this committee's jurisdiction that really matters to shortlines, the Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado Railroad, the South Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad.
		They've both benefited from CRISI grants and shortlines, and there's more to come as long as we can keep that program going.
		Yeah, which is incredibly important to support because when shortlines don't function well, we can't get our ag products to the mouths that feed it, and it's going to cause food inflation because you can't move these fields.
		You can move the products that they grow, and that matters.
		You know, I think about our families farmed 130 years ago, if you go back on the abstracts, our home place used to be owned by the railroad that the federal government gave it to the railroad.
		We and many other people settling Kansas purchased that, and that's what the railroad used to continue to fund building more track, right?
		And so literally, you know, the railroads were instrumental in us building western Kansas, building the Midwest, really western part of this country.
East Palestine Tragedy 00:03:28
unidentified		So we need to keep supporting you guys.
		Thanks for being here.
		I appreciate we're having this hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
		Thanks.
		Gentleman Yields back.
		Ms. Psyche recognized for five minutes.
emilia sykes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, as well as the ranking member for holding this hearing today, kicking us off for this rail subcommittee hearing.
		As you all know, on February 3rd, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials derailed in East Palestine, Ohio.
		To prevent a potential explosion, a controlled burn was also ignited, spewing these chemicals into the air and sparking health concerns for Ohioans and Pennsylvanians alike.
		What occurred in the two years following, no one should have had to deal with the horror and the fallout of such a disastrous derailment, which has impacted this community and continues to impact this community.
		So one of the things that I did, and after being a member of Congress for less than a month, was introduce a bill with my colleagues, a bipartisan bill from Democrats and Republicans in Ohio, the Rail Act, which was a piece of legislation to address the needs of the community.
		And we heard from folks in East Palestine, Ohio, we heard from labor unions, we heard from stakeholders, and we put this bill together hoping that we could address the issue of rail safety.
		And one of those provisions specifically came from our governor, Mike DeWine, which was around the temperature threshold requirements for safety placards.
		Because what we found in the subsequent report was the first responders went looking for the placards, but they had melted and they had no idea what they were dealing with.
		And I bring that up because the work that many of us have done, you heard from my colleague from Pennsylvania, our colleague from Texas, who have been trying to figure out a solution to this issue, yet we have no solution to this issue.
		And people at East Palestine are still wondering why Congress refused to act.
		We heard a lot of criticism of the former president not showing up.
		The current president did show up.
		We still have no legislation that addresses the needs of the people, not only in East Palestine, Ohio, but all across the country who have been subjected to train derailments and had their lives turned upside down.
		And I'll briefly share a story because I was speaking to a law school class early this week and they were asking me about the Rail Act and one of the students asked, well, with the fact that we now have a Vice President Vance who was the co-lead for the Railway Safety Act, do you think that we will see train safety in the future?
		And my response was no.
		And they waited for me to say something else, but my response was no, because after ruining these people's lives in East Palestine and constantly begging for hearings, having two or three or four or five different versions of the bill trying to find a solution that would ultimately address the needs of everyone, we still have nothing.
		And as my colleague from Pennsylvania said, I find that to be wholly unacceptable.
		It is unacceptable to have not done anything for the people of East Palestine, Ohio, and all across this country who are concerned.
Defect Detectors Matter 00:03:04
emilia sykes ▲ ● ▼		And so I was going to ask you, Mr. Jeffries, what could we do?
		What would you be okay with?
		But my colleague had already answered this, asked, and you've answered the question, so now I know.
		But I am going to ask Mr. Cassidy, what are some of the things that you suggest that we could do?
		Because at this point, I just want you all to be on the record of expressing solutions that we can hear, that we can put to paper, and then we can implement and keep our community safe.
unidentified		Sure.
		Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
		East Palestine brought to light a lot of failures within the system of railroading.
		And defect detectors are kind of at the center point of that.
		And the purpose of the defect detector is it's a wayside detector.
		It lets you know if there are defects in the cars of the train, if there are trending indicators to give a heads up that something might be going wrong.
		You know, like in a car when you have wheel bearings, if those bearings start to seize temperature, obviously you have metal on metal, friction takes place, and you have temperature that rises.
		Historically, at least from when I hired on in 2005, these defect detectors gave you audible warnings.
		When you hit one or when you started to go over one, it gave you an introduction.
		You know, CSX, mild post, blah, blah, blah, defect detector, just to let you know it is on.
		And then as you went over it, if there is a defect, it would sound an audible alarm, and then it would give you a closing announcement saying in CSX, defect, or mild post, blah, blah, blah.
		This is what the issues are.
		But then somewhere along the way, we lost the priority of those communications, and defect detectors started turning off the entrance alarm.
		So you didn't know if they were working or they weren't working.
		And then somewhere else along the way, in the next step in the transition, is that railroads decided they didn't want to give the operating crew that information about the defects, that they were better suited to determine whether there was a defect, it should be appropriate, should be reported or not.
		And then we get into the temperature thresholds like you addressed.
		You know, there should be a standard on those thresholds.
		There should be a point where we need to say, hey, look, you've got to be notified of it.
		But to Congressman Moulton's point earlier, too, there's no reason we shouldn't be in a place where technology doesn't exist that's providing real-time information to the crew in the cab of the locomotive because that's who needs that information.
		We're not going to keep operating a train when we know there's a problem behind us.
		We're the ones that are responsible for its operation.
		We're the ones whose lives are at stake, and we're the ones that want to make sure that we get the job done the way we are supposed to.
		If there's any one thing in East Palestine or Palestine that we can fix, it is making sure that the defect tectors are communicating, that they are relaying the information to the crew, to the people that have to have it in real time, sorry, and getting those things done.
		But the Rail Safety Enhancement Act did approach a lot of those issues.
emilia sykes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
emilia sykes ▲ ● ▼		I know we are out of time, but I am on this committee to make sure that we figure out these solutions and implement them.
LA Community Transit Solutions 00:15:39
emilia sykes ▲ ● ▼		And I look forward to working with everyone in order to do that.
emilia sykes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for letting us go over, Mr. Chair.
unidentified		I yield back.
unidentified		Mr. Burchett.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Speaker.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Jeffries, what priorities or revisions would you like to see in the surface transportation reauthorization legislation?
unidentified		So to name a few, fix the highway trust fund.
unidentified		Our competitors have gotten and are on pace to get over $300 billion in public subsidy for the infrastructure they operate over.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		How would you suggest we fix it?
unidentified		VMT with a weight variance on it.
		Their initial pilot programs out there.
		It's very eminently doable right now, and it's the most equitable way to do it.
		Two, no truck size and weight increases.
		Three, maintain multimodal competitive grant programs for our public partners and our shortline colleagues.
		Four, create an outcomes regulation-based paradigm that focuses on safety outcomes versus inputs, to name a few.
		Permitting reform, sensible permitting reform.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Sir, we are government.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		We are not in the business of fixing things.
unidentified		We are in the business.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Of making it worse, but I appreciate that.
		We will work on that.
		The Highway Trust Fund, tell me how it impacts the rail industry.
unidentified		Well, as I mentioned, freight railroads, Class 1 railroads, we pay for almost 100 percent of our own funding of our infrastructure to the tune of, when you account for inflation, $1.1 trillion of private funding since 1980.
		And we compete strongly against our trucking partners.
		They are partners.
		They are also competitors.
		And they operate over a public highway system that is woefully underfunded by the user fee structure.
		And all that leads to is a competitive imbalance.
		And look, I've heard the ATA advocate for paying more into the system.
		I've heard countless stakeholders advocate for paying more into the system.
		We haven't had a change since 1993.
		Think about how much inflation has occurred and how much less the dollar is worth now.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		I hear it every day, every day.
		I had a question about new technologies, but I believe Mr. Cassidy addressed some of those with the Bering indicators.
		I packed a few of those Timkin bearings in my life, big and small.
		That's something everybody ought to do at some point.
		And have the federal regulations slowed the implementation of these technologies, Mr. Jeffries?
		Simple yes or no?
unidentified		Yes.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Baker, how does the shortline rail industry utilize the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Grants?
unidentified		Yes, sir.
unidentified		CRISI allows us to do projects that we just simply couldn't afford.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		And what's your biggest barrier for that?
unidentified		The biggest challenge going forward is: will CRISI continue to exist?
		Because the need exists, and so we need to make sure in the next surface reoff bill that the program continues with advance appropriations.
		Once the grant has been given, the biggest barrier is just how slow it is to get from, you know, the award date is incredibly exciting, and everyone's happy, and there's a press release and a press conference.
		And then the next couple of years is sort of a painful slog of getting it, actually getting money in the ground, you know, and ties and rail.
		And it just really doesn't need to be that slow.
burgess owens ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		And that's how you think we should improve that is to make it faster?
unidentified		Yes, sir.
unidentified		All right.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Don't call me sir.
		It's just Tim.
		You'll get nowhere showing me any respect in Washington, sir, I can assure you.
unidentified		Noted.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Let me ask you one more question, Mr. Baker.
		You've been very helpful.
		Has the bureaucratic red tape interfered with Shortline's ability to build, and how can Congress remove those barriers?
		Just, I don't need the lawyer answer.
		I need me and you sitting here talking answer.
unidentified		The answer is yes.
		The red tape has slowed the process of building.
		And there are simple things, and I'm not even a lawyer, so I won't give the lawyer answer.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		You work for a living, you choose not to steal, is what you're telling me.
unidentified		Things such as permit by rule, where if it's obviously a rehabilitation in an existing right-of-way, the answer is obvious.
		There's going to be no significant environmental impact.
		It's going to get a categorical exclusion.
		There's no reason that process needs to take months or years.
		That should be essentially instantaneous.
		Also, pre-award authority, let us spend our own money at risk, and then we can get the project going.
		And then, if you want to spend a few months arguing over paperwork, it's not as painful because at least we're making progress.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Would any of you, gentlemen, like to add anything to that in the next 12 seconds?
unidentified		I would just like to add that I agree.
		I spoke a little bit earlier about sometimes the processes, like as a contractor, when we want to give our partners those budget prices, sometimes years later they get the funding, and now that budget price we gave three years ago really, it doesn't pay for the project anymore.
		So we have to go for change orders and things of that nature.
		So the timing really is an important thing.
tim burchett ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I yield back.
		Mr. Chairman, I would like to say for the record that I have an intern with me named Emma Grace from Nashville, Tennessee, and she is wonderful.
		We hear a lot of bad things about what's going on with our young people in this country.
		And around a young person like that, it makes me feel a whole lot better about where our country is headed.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Gentleman yields back.
		Ms. Friedman, you're recognized for five minutes.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		We have heard a lot about the importance of rail investments on farms and on freight, and that's wonderful and true.
		And we've also heard about the need to find ways of really funding our rail infrastructure, both for safety and for economic development.
		And I want to bring up another facet of this that's very important to my district, which is housing.
		I represent Los Angeles.
		As you know, we have been devastated by recent wildfires that have left maybe 12,000 people or more homeless.
		That's running straight into an existing housing crisis in Los Angeles that already had tens of thousands of people homeless in our community and many others facing severe overcrowding and thousands of people who can't afford their rent because of the housing shortage driving up the price of rent.
		To me, it's been obvious for many years working on transportation issues that we're not going to solve our housing crisis in Los Angeles or many of our parts of our country without figuring out mobility.
		Because the first thing that neighbors always say when anyone wants to add new housing in Los Angeles and in many parts of the country is that they're concerned about the impact on parking and traffic congestion, which makes sense because we don't always give people other options for good mobility.
		And that means that for us to fix housing, we have to fix transit and better invest in transit.
		And rail, of course, plays a huge role in that.
		And getting people to and from work, which sometimes in Los Angeles can mean traveling many miles because people are priced out or working in areas where they can't find housing.
		So that's the lens that I'm looking at transportation investments through, that it's not just about moving freight.
		It's not just about moving maybe from region to region, but also solving our housing crisis, which makes it even more important.
		Now, the FTA's pilot program for transit-oriented development, our TOT planning helps to create communities that are walkable and bikeable and more connected.
		And the bipartisan infrastructure law provided a 38% increase for DOT programs.
		But transportation costs are still one of the highest consumer costs that we see.
		And in 2023, LA area households spent 16% of their budget on average on transportation, totaling almost $15,000 a year.
		And for people who are transit-dependent, people who can't afford a car or for a variety of reasons can't have a car, we actually give them a pretty miserable experience because we don't invest enough in transit, partially because our formulas from the federal government don't reflect the real need.
		So I am wondering, and I guess I'm going to direct this to Mr. Cassidy, but it really can be any of you.
		How can the federal government be a better partner?
		I know that, of course, funding is a part of it, but I am looking for ways to help support rail, rail expansion, upgrading rail, faster headways.
		And so is there something I should be looking at, certain programs that I should be fighting for, or policy changes that I can help push forward to help with transit in Los Angeles and across the country?
		Sure.
		Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
		I wish I was better equipped to really speak to this and the funding nature of it.
		But what I will say, one, I want it to be understood that Labor is fully on board with helping to rebuild the LA community and anything that we can do to encourage the growth or new introduction of transit and rail, we are 100% on board.
		You know, the one critique I would offer about government and its role in how we do that is just having an open communication and an honest conversation about what we can do to make things better, especially in the rail space.
		You know, safety for us is not a partisan issue.
		It should not be us versus them.
		It is simply one of those things that we must accept and we must drive towards in improving communities.
		It's one of those things that we've got to be talking about, real-world solutions that are doable and then not worrying about what party might do what.
		We've just got to get down to the fact that, hey, we need to do what's right for the American public.
		We need to do what's right with how to make sure they have the opportunity to get to work.
		And I know this effect all too well.
		I'll be really honest here.
		I lived in the Huntington, West Virginia area for the last 15 years.
		When I was elected to this position and moved here, never was I smacked so hard in the face about the difficulties of transportation than living in Washington, D.C.
		And I understand the realities and the challenges.
		And so I can't necessarily recommend the fundamentals, but what I can tell you is that Congress has got to step in.
		You've got to learn how to or figure out how to work together and just realize this is something we need desperately to make sure we get it done and then let it roll.
		And we are fully on board to make sure we get over the finish line with that.
		Yes.
		I would just add, first and foremost, my condolences to the entire LA community.
		I have family who's lost a home, friends, no doubt you do as well, and absolute tragedy.
		I think a lot of it comes down to Southern California, which is another one of those parts of the country that has so many different governments.
		And we talked about a program earlier in Chicago called the CREATE program, where the city, county, state, freight rail, passenger rail, commuter rail have all worked together to talk about investments to be made to free up capacity, to create more service.
		And I think there was a real opportunity there to coordinate and identify shared priorities that will have the biggest impact for the whole community versus community by community.
		And so I would encourage you to take a look at that program and how we might be able to work to be part of that sort of establishment moving down the road.
		I'd also know we've talked about the Highway Trust Fund a few times, and Ian and I tend to approach that from the concept of freight and freight rail competing against trucks.
		But I think our transit friends would have a similar vantage point on rail transit or even bus transit versus roads.
		And the reality is LA is very different than perhaps a rural area.
		In a rural area, perhaps the money is best used to expand the county road.
		But in LA, New York, Chicago, you cannot build your way out of traffic congestion by more roads.
		It doesn't work.
		You need to invest more in rail transit.
		Thank you so much.
		Yield.
		Chair yields back.
		Mr. Taylor, you recognize your five minutes.
david taylor ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus for holding this meeting, and thank you, witnesses, for being here with us today.
		I appreciate it very much.
		As it stands, Ohio has 44 operating railroads and over 5,000 miles of track, making Ohio the third largest rail infrastructure state in the nation.
		Manufacturing, steel, agriculture, and international trade all depend on railways to connect Ohio products with national and global markets.
		As one of two Ohioans serving on the Transportation and Infrastructure Rail Subcommittee, ensuring rail safety after the incident in East Palestine is one of my top priorities.
		Mr. DeLoisio, in your testimony, you mentioned how railroads across the country following East Palestine created and implemented new safety measures to ensure derailments like this didn't occur again.
		Can you go into further detail about specific safety measures that the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association has taken to this point?
unidentified		Thank you, Congressman.
		So our association of contractors and engineers and suppliers, they're constantly looking at new technologies like these hot box detectors, like signaling information data processing things.
		Our contractors are constantly looking at safer and better and more efficient ways to fix the tracks and also to work with the railroads, the operating railroads.
		I mean, our association, we started, we have a robust safety committee, which talks about constantly about safer railroads, safer way to do things, safer procedures.
		While we don't get into the actual operations of the trains, our contractor members help our Class One and our shoreline partners in making things safer.
		So, when it's insulation of those detectors or whatever new technology comes out there, we're definitely on board to try to help them and support them and be a sounding board for them to try to advance some of these technologies.
david taylor ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Mr. Jeffries, we've heard conflicting statements over the course of today about derailment statistics over the last three years.
		Would you mind sharing some of the underpinnings of your testimony earlier that the rate of derailments is going down over the last few years?
unidentified		Sure, I'd be glad to.
		Just to add on to my colleagues' comments, freight railroads took a number of steps as well, increasing the number of wayside detection, whether it's hot box, whether it's acoustic bearing, whether it's machine inspection portals, whether it's reducing absolute threshold on bearing increases, whether it's establishing new trending algorithms for troubling trends and increasing temperatures on bearings, or whether it's making sure first responders have real-time information.
		2.3 million first responders now have access to our real-time app, shifting to the safety numbers.
		So, we saw in 2023, employee injury rate was at the industry's all-time low.
		We're a 200-year-old industry, all-time low.
		Final 2024 numbers haven't come in yet.
		We're neck and neck with that, slightly below, but that's through 10 months.
		So, hopefully, the last two months of the year will bear that out.
		Of course, any number above zero, we've got a lot more work to do.
		On the derailment rate, rate is the key measure.
		Rate in 2023, the rate was 3.46 incidents per million train miles.
Minimizing In-Yard Incidents 00:08:43
unidentified		So far, in 2024, the number is 2.77 per million train miles.
		Again, that's above zero.
		That's not acceptable.
		We've got a lot more work to do.
		But the vast majority of those incidents occur within the yard or on industry track, not on the main line, the main line being the interstate highway of the rail network.
		That does not diminish those incidents.
		They can absolutely result in tragedy and do.
		And so we've got to minimize those in-yard incidents.
		We've seen a significant downtick there.
		Those incidents also largely include a wheel coming off a rail during the switch.
		So we cannot equate all derailments.
david taylor ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Thank you for that.
		Many short line railroads across Ohio and the United States operate on decades-old or century-old existing infrastructure.
		I support investing in infrastructure, but we also have to be mindful of the deficit.
		The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements or CRISI grant program seems to be transformative in repairing outdated infrastructure without wasting taxpayer dollars.
		What's the biggest barrier for shortline operators when they consider or apply for a CRISI grant at this time?
unidentified		Right.
		Well, I appreciate the underpinning of the question.
		Shortlines, we take a lot of pride in the fact they're very, very lean.
		There's almost no bureaucracy.
		If a shortline gets 10, 12, even $5 million from the FRA in a CRISI grant, that money goes right into the track.
		There's no engineering studies.
		There's not layers of management to process it through.
		So we feel very happy that we can deliver government a good bang for the buck.
		The delays, the delays from announcement to obligation, that's really the biggest hurdle to overcome.
		And then, of course, just making sure the program continues to exist because we have a lot more to go in Ohio.
		We've made great progress, but there's a lot more to do.
david taylor ▲ ● ▼		Thank you again, Chairman.
david taylor ▲ ● ▼		I yield back.
unidentified		Chairman yields back.
		Mr. Nadler, you're recognized.
		Five minutes.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Let me start by thanking Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus for holding this hearing and the witnesses for appearing.
		Before I go into my questions, I want to express my concern again about President Trump's hastily and poorly drafted executive order that froze a substantial portion of critical bipartisan infrastructure law funding.
		Despite the White House drafting memos and OMB trying to clarify, states are still being told that their approved funding for bridges and highways is on pause.
		I remain concerned that the White House triggered an entirely avoidable crisis, and I urge the White House to finally clean up this mess.
		Mr. Jeffries, your testimony underscored the many advantages of rail freight compared to trucking, particularly in terms of safety, efficiency, and infrastructure sustainability.
		Studies suggest that increasing truck size and weight limits could divert as much as 20 percent of freight from rail to roads.
		Could you elaborate on the potential consequences of such a shift for the communities we serve, including the strain on the nation's road and bridge infrastructure?
unidentified		Thank you for the question.
		Welcome back to the committee, and thank you for your longstanding championship of this issue.
		The impact will be immense, to put it lightly.
		We already have a highway trust fund that's underfunded by hundreds of billions of dollars.
		We've long since abandoned the user pays fee.
		Our trucking partners operate over infrastructure, of which most estimates say they pay max 60 percent to cover the cost of the infrastructure damage.
		Increasing truck weights would only exacerbate infrastructure damage, exacerbate congestion.
		That's more trucks moving up and down the I-95 corridor, the I-81 corridor, which every time I'm on it, I feel like I'm the only car driving on it, increase emissions.
		It's not good for customers, consumers, communities.
		It's not good for, for, frankly, society.
		And at the end of the day, from my perspective, and oh, by the way, I know we've had our differences today, but this is an issue I guarantee you every single one of us sees eye to eye on and supports.
		So at least there's a few things out there.
		But from my perspective, look, we're just looking for a level playing field here.
		We pay for our infrastructure, and we expect our competitors to pay for their infrastructure and then let the chips fall where they may.
		But when you are subsidizing infrastructure to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, that just flips the scale on its side and pushes freight where it's going to go to the cheapest level, which is going to be the highways if it's allowed to increase weights at, in addition to that level of subsidy.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		Does everybody on the panel, in fact, agree with Mr. Jeffries on this?
unidentified		I do, for sure.
		I'd also note there's a huge safety concern, which you all have pointed out.
		There are 40,000 people dead last year on the interstate highway system.
		We are used to that as a country because it happens every year for decades, but that's a horrifying number.
		And the fact that anybody could look at that scenario and say what we ought to do is add bigger and heavier and more trucks to that, I just don't think that makes a lot of sense.
		Thank you.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Jeffries, your testimony also mentioned the disparity in funding between rail and trucking.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		What policy changes could Congress implement to address this imbalance while ensuring a fair and competitive freight transportation market?
unidentified		Well, first of all, don't make any changes to truck size and weight.
		And second of all, we've got to get a hold of how the highways are funded.
		It's got to be done by the user.
		And I would just say, you know, it's not just the folks on this panel that share our concerns.
		It's truck drivers.
		There's a lot of trucking companies, to my knowledge.
		The ATA is not advocating for this.
		This is a select group of shippers advocating for this.
		And so we believe citizens don't support it.
		So we believe the vast majority of this country opposes any sort of change.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Finally, your testimony highlighted the importance of programs like the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America, which I was proud to help create a decade ago, and the MEGA Grant Program.
		These initiatives have been instrumental in addressing critical infrastructure challenges nationwide.
		They also represent vital funding opportunities for transformative projects like the Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel Project, which has the potential to significantly divert freight from trucks to rail, enabling the more efficient movement of millions of tons of goods each year through New York and New Jersey.
		Mr. Jeffries, in your view, what steps can Congress take to improve these grant programs to support even more transformative projects, particularly in high-need areas?
unidentified		I'll be quick.
		Keep funding them, get the money out quicker, and make sure that distributions and awards are merit-based.
		And finally, one application, one central application for all these different programs so that folks don't have to reinvent the wheel every time they're applying for funding from a different program.
		But fully support.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
jerry nadler ▲ ● ▼		I yield back.
unidentified		Chairman yields back, and don't see anybody else that hasn't been recognized.
		So thank the witnesses.
		Thank you for coming, staying to the end, giving us great direct answers on all kinds of issues.
		And with that, yes, go ahead.
		Thank you.
		I just heard several mentions of cargo theft.
		We've been working on retail theft, and that's much more than stealing a candy bar now.
		I suspect there's some overlap between these circles that are involved in this.
		Maybe we need to put a roundtable together with some of the stakeholders and look at how we can do a concerted effort on this issue.
		We'd be happy to.
		Thank you.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Now, no one else is asking to be recognized, so the meeting stands adjourned.
Lincoln V. Davis 00:02:09
unidentified		On Wednesday, President Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., testifies at a Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing.
		He's an environmental lawyer and activist, and also the 2024 independent presidential candidate.
		He eventually withdrew from the race to endorse Donald Trump.
		You can watch the hearing live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		And then on Thursday, Mr. Kennedy returns to Capitol Hill to take questions from the Senate Health Committee.
		That's live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
		You can also watch both hearings on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		Sunday night, on C-SPAN's QA, part two of our interview with historian Nigel Hamilton, author of Lincoln v. Davis.
		He talks about the military face-off between these two American presidents during the Civil War and the impact the Emancipation Proclamation had on the war's outcome.
nigel hamilton ▲ ● ▼		From that moment, the 1st of January 1863, the South was doomed.
		Until then, Jefferson Davis had been allowed by Lincoln to frame the war as a noble white Southern fight for independence.
		Pure and simple.
		But from the moment that Lincoln said no, You, Jefferson Davis, and your commander-in-chief, Robert E. Lee, have attacked the North, which is what they did in September of 1862.
		It's the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, if you like.
		Once you attack the North, you change the whole game.
unidentified		Nigel Hamilton with his book, Lincoln vs. Davis, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A.

Chapters

00:00:01 Federal Regulations and AI Safety
00:04:14 Dependable Rail Service
00:07:06 Guaranteed Funding for Rail
00:18:41 Committee Begins Prioritizing Rail Infrastructure
00:34:16 Platform Threats and Safety Concerns
00:37:00 Safety First in Rail Regulations
00:52:10 CARB's Waiver Withdrawal
00:55:14 Grade Crossing Safety
01:03:56 Investing in Efficiency
01:15:19 Ai Deployed For Repairs
01:22:01 Regulating Rail Safety Efforts
01:37:24 Government Buy for Rail Innovation
01:46:45 Modernizing Rail Safety
02:02:23 Need for Rail Safety Innovations
02:05:29 Dramatic Warning On Rail Safety
02:18:43 East Palestine Tragedy
02:21:56 Defect Detectors Matter
02:24:45 LA Community Transit Solutions
02:40:10 Minimizing In-Yard Incidents
02:48:39 Lincoln V. Davis