    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED
                      RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES
                      OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL
                      TECHNOLOGIES

    =======================================================================

                                    (117-16)

                                 REMOTE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
                            AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 6, 2021

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-123 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

      PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                      District of Columbia
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICK LARSEN, Washington
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Georgia
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           JARED HUFFMAN, California
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
      Puerto Rico                        SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GREG STANTON, Arizona
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
    MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                                         KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                         MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                         NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                         Vacancy

         Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

    DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey,
                   Chair
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington,
    PETE STAUBER, Minnesota                Vice Chair
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 Georgia
    MICHELLE STEEL, California           DINA TITUS, Nevada
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)    JARED HUFFMAN, California
                                         STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
                                         JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
                                         Vacancy
                                         PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
                                         Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, and Chair, Subcommittee on Railroads,
      Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement..........     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening
      statement......................................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................   125
    Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Tennessee, prepared statement..................................   125

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel 1

    Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
      Transportation, oral statement.................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Rachel Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, Seattle
      Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, oral statement...............    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Phillip A. Washington, Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles
      County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, oral statement...    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Danielle Eckert, International Representative, Political and
      Legislative Affairs, International Brotherhood of Electrical
      Workers, oral statement........................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon III, Judge, Waller County, Texas,
      oral statement.................................................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Andy Kunz, President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. High Speed
      Rail Association, oral statement...............................    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    30

                                    Panel 2

    Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive Officer, Texas
      Central, oral statement........................................    63
        Prepared statement...........................................    64
    William J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer, National Railroad
      Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), oral statement.................    70
        Prepared statement...........................................    72
    Josh Giegel, Chief Executive Officer and Cofounder, Virgin
      Hyperloop, oral statement......................................    84
        Prepared statement...........................................    86
    Andres de Leon, Chief Executive Officer, Hyperloop Transportation
      Technologies, oral statement...................................    89
        Prepared statement...........................................    90
    P. Michael Reininger, Chief Executive Officer, Brightline
      Holdings, LLC, oral statement..................................    92
        Prepared statement...........................................    94
    Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Northeast
      Maglev, LLC, oral statement....................................    98
        Prepared statement...........................................    99

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio:
        Letter of May 20, 2021, from Paul P. Skoutelas, President and
          CEO, American Public Transportation Association............   126
        ``Cascadia High Speed Rail Business Prospectus,'' September
          2018.......................................................   128
        Testimony of Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager, Coalition
          for Smarter Growth.........................................   129
        Letter of May 6, 2021, from Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Field
          Representative, National Parks Conservation Association....   129
        Letter from Jolene Ivey, Council Member, District 5, Prince
          George's County Council....................................   131
    Testimony of John Tos, President, Tos Farms, Inc., Submitted for
      the Record by Hon. Doug LaMalfa................................   132
    Post-hearing Comments from Witness Andres de Leon, Chief
      Executive Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. John D. Porcari, Former
      Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation............   135
    Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Rachel Smith,
      President and Chief Executive Officer, Seattle Metropolitan
      Chamber of Commerce............................................   135
    Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Phillip A. Washington, Chief
      Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
      Transportation Authority.......................................   136
    Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Danielle Eckert, International
      Representative, Political and Legislative Affairs,
      International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers................   137
    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon
      III, Judge, Waller County, Texas...............................   138
    Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Andy Kunz, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, U.S. High Speed Rail Association............   139
    Questions to Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive
      Officer, Texas Central, from:
        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   140
        Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford...............................   140
        Hon. Scott Perry.............................................   141
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to William J. Flynn, Chief
      Executive Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation
      (Amtrak).......................................................   145
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Josh Giegel, Chief
      Executive Officer and Cofounder, Virgin Hyperloop..............   152
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Andres de Leon, Chief
      Executive Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies.......   153
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to P. Michael Reininger,
      Chief Executive Officer, Brightline Holdings, LLC..............   154
    Questions to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive
      Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC, from:
        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   155
        Hon. Seth Moulton............................................   156
        Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick....................................   157

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  May 3, 2021

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
    and Hazardous Materials
        FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
    Hazardous Materials
        RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``When Unlimited
    Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges
    of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies''

                                    PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
    Materials will meet on Thursday, May 6, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT
    in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom to hold a
    hearing titled ``When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited
    Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and
    Emerging Rail Technologies.'' The hearing will explore the
    opportunities and limitations associated with high-speed rail
    and emerging technologies, including regulatory oversight,
    technology readiness, project cost, and available federal
    resources.
        The Subcommittee will hear testimony from two different
    panels, focused respectively on the federal policy of high-
    speed rail and proposed projects. The first panel will include
    witnesses from former leadership of the United States
    Department of Transportation (DOT), the Seattle Metropolitan
    Chamber of Commerce, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
    Transportation Authority, the International Brotherhood of
    Electrical Workers, an elected judge from Waller County, Texas,
    and the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. The second panel will
    include witnesses from Texas Central High-Speed Rail, Amtrak,
    Virgin Hyperloop, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies,
    Brightline Trains, and the Northeast Maglev.

                                   BACKGROUND

        While current global health events have reduced highway,
    rail, and air travel, future projections show that intercity
    travel will both rebound and increase from pre-pandemic levels,
    but mobility will be constrained by existing transportation
    capacity limitations. DOT estimates that by 2045, increased
    congestion will be experienced on intercity highways.\1\ The
    costs of congestion have already increased almost 50 percent
    from the previous decade.\2\ In 2017, traffic congestion cost
    $179 billion in our nation's urban areas, including 8.8 billion
    hours of delay and 3.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel.\3\
    Further estimates forecast that national congestion costs will
    grow from $179 billion in 2017 to $237 billion in 2025, a 32
    percent increase.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Beyond Traffic 2045.'' The U.S. Department of Transportation.
    Accessible at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
    BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf
        \2\ ``Urban Mobility Report 2019.'' Texas A&M Transportation
    Institute, August 2019. Accessible at https://static.tti.tamu.edu/
    tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf
        \3\ Ibid.
        \4\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the 2019 United States Department of Energy
    Data Book, Amtrak is 47 percent more energy efficient than
    traveling by car and 33 percent more energy efficient than
    domestic air travel on a per-passenger-mile basis. Traveling on
    the electrified Northeast Corridor system emits 83 percent less
    greenhouse gas emissions than driving and up to 73 percent less
    than flying.\5\ Brightline Florida is aiming to be carbon
    neutral with the use of biofuels, solar power at stations, and
    electric vehicle plug-in charging in its parking lots.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``Amtrak Sustainability Report FY2019,'' Amtrak. Available at
    https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/
    documents/environmental1/Amtrak-Sustainability-Report-FY19.pdf.
        \6\ Brightline. www.gobrightline.com
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One difference between our national transportation system
    and other leading industrial nations is the limited high-speed
    passenger rail service in the United States. Moreover, the
    United States invests only a fraction of what European and
    Asian countries have invested in the development of high-speed
    rail operations.

    FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

        There is a discrepancy in historical federal investment
    between highways, aviation, and intercity passenger rail. In
    terms of federal investment in transportation modes, between
    1949 and 2017, more than $2 trillion in federal funds have been
    invested in our nation's highways and over $777 billion in
    aviation.\7\ Federal investment in passenger rail began in 1971
    with the creation of the National Railroad Passenger
    Corporation (Amtrak).\8\ In contrast to highways and aviation,
    between 1971 and 2020, $96 billion in federal funds have been
    invested in Amtrak.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Committee staff calculations of annual appropriations bills,
    inflated to 2009 dollars.
        \8\ Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, P.L. 91-518.
        \9\ Committee staff calculations of annual appropriations bills,
    inflated to 2009 dollars.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The establishment of a national high-speed rail system in
    the U.S. poses opportunities as well as challenges. Congress
    has recognized that the development of a comprehensive high-
    speed rail network requires long-term planning and investment.
    However, to this end, legislation has historically provided
    sparse funding for high-speed rail. One such example is the
    High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ ``High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR).'' U.S.
    Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration.
    Accessible at https://railroads.dot.gov/competitive-discretionary-
    grant-programs/high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-hsipr/high
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The foundation for the HSIPR grant program originates from
    the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994, which created the high-
    speed rail program (P.L. 104-440), the Passenger Rail
    Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA, P.L. 110-432)
    and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA,
    P.L. 111-5). PRIIA, passed in October 2008, established three
    new competitive grant programs for high-speed and intercity
    passenger rail capital improvements. In February 2009,
    President Obama signed ARRA into law, appropriating $8 billion
    for the PRIIA-authorized high-speed and intercity passenger
    rail grant programs. Then, in December 2009, Congress
    appropriated an additional $2.5 billion for the HSIPR grant
    program in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Department of
    Transportation Appropriations Act. These funds were invested in
    new project planning and engineering, as well as large-scale
    service development programs, and it supplemented projects
    already funded under ARRA.
        The majority of federal funding for high-speed and
    intercity passenger rail has focused on improving existing
    lines in five corridors: Seattle-Portland; Chicago-St. Louis;
    Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor (NEC); and Charlotte-
    Washington, DC.\11\ Most of the remaining funds have been
    allocated to a largely new system dedicated to passenger trains
    between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the California High
    Speed Rail (CAHSR) project. The proposed line was originally
    estimated to cost roughly $33 billion and begin operating in
    2020.\12\ This project recently announced an $80 billion total
    cost to complete Phase I with a service start date of 2029.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ ``The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States:
    Issues and Recent Events.'' Congressional Research Service, December
    2013. R42584.
        \12\ Ralph Vartabedian, A `low-cost' plan for California bullet
    train brings $800 million in overruns, big delays, Los Angeles Times
    (Feb. 22, 2021), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/
    2021-02-22/california-bullet-train-dragados-design-changes.
        \13\ ``2020 Business Plan, Recovery and Transformation.''
    California High Speed Rail Authority. Accessible at https://hsr.ca.gov/
    about/high-speed-rail-business-plans/2020-business-plan/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cost estimates for constructing high-speed rail vary
    according to train speed, the topography of the corridor, the
    cost of right-of-way, and other factors. According to the
    Congressional Research Service (CRS), ``few, if any, high-speed
    rail lines anywhere in the world have earned enough revenue to
    cover both their construction and operating costs, even where
    population density is far greater than anywhere in the United
    States.'' \14\ Much like the federal investments made by the
    U.S. government in highways, aviation, and transit, foreign
    governments have generally contributed to the cost of
    construction and in many cases the operating costs of high-
    speed rail as well.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ ``The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States:
    Issues and Recent Events.'' Congressional Research Service, December
    2013. R42584.
        \15\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Current federal funding for all passenger rail is
    insufficient to meaningfully invest in high-speed rail
    projects. In FY 2021, the amount of federal funds available for
    all rail projects was approximately $2.5 billion, little of
    which was eligible for high-speed rail.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Public Law No: 116-260.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On July 1, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
    with a bipartisan vote of 233-188 the Majority's H.R. 2, the
    Moving Forward Act, which proposed authorizing $60 billion over
    five years, with $19.2 billion over five years for the
    Passenger Rail Improvement, Modernization, and Expansion
    (PRIME) grant program. This grant program would fund intercity
    passenger rail projects, including high-speed rail projects.
        In March of 2021, the Biden Administration released the
    American Jobs Plan, which proposed $80 billion over five years
    above baseline spending for rail projects. This request
    included $20 billion for the PRIME grant program.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ ``FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan,'' The White House. March
    31, 2021. Accessible at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
    statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES TODAY

        Today, the world's high-speed rail systems fall into two
    categories--steel wheel-on-steel rail systems and magnetic
    levitation (maglev) systems. There is no operational hyperloop
    system moving passengers today.
        The only magnetic levitation systems in current revenue
    operation are located in China, South Korea, and Japan, and
    these systems account for a small percentage of these
    countries' high-speed rail networks. China is the only country
    with high-speed maglev in operation for approximately 18 miles
    between the Shanghai airport and a terminus outside of
    downtown. Japan has plans to develop a high-speed maglev route
    between Tokyo and Nagoya.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Makichuk, Dave. ``China's `floating' maglev train in testing
    stage,'' Asia Times. June 23, 2020. Accessible at https://
    asiatimes.com/2020/06/chinas-floating-maglev-train-in-testing-stage/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Steel wheel-on-steel rail high-speed rail systems are
    vastly more common and typically operate on exclusive,
    electrified rights-of-way.\19\ These high-speed systems can
    attain performance well above what is capable of today's
    conventional American passenger rail service. High-speed rail
    can either be built by improving existing tracks and signaling
    to allow trains to reach high speeds, typically on track shared
    with slower-moving freight trains, or by building new tracks
    dedicated exclusively to high-speed service. The potential
    costs and benefits are relatively lower with the former
    approach and higher with the latter approach.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ ``The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States:
    Issues and Recent Events.'' Congressional Research Service, December
    2013. R42584.
        \20\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 1964, Japan became the first nation to develop a high-
    speed rail operation. First introduced with the Shinkansen, or
    so-called ``bullet train,'' Japan began operating at speeds
    faster than 150 miles per hour.\21\ In FY 2019, speeds reached
    over 310 miles per hour and ridership reached over 174 million
    people.\22\ In 1981, France inaugurated a 255-mile high-speed
    rail line between Paris and Lyon, cutting rail travel time from
    four hours to two hours and creating a network that now spans
    1,700 miles with trains reaching speeds of 320 miles per
    hour.\23\ In FY 2019, ridership reached 5 million passengers
    per day.\24\ In 1991, Germany unveiled a 203-mile high-speed
    rail service between Hanover and Wurzburg and a 62-mile line
    between Mannheim and Stuttgart. Since then, numerous other
    countries have created additional high-speed rail lines. In
    1992, Spain and Italy launched their own high-speed rail
    systems. In 1998, Sweden upgraded its rail lines to accommodate
    high-speed rail, and in 2000, the Netherlands started service
    between Amsterdam and Brussels. In 2020, China announced plans
    to more than double its approximately 21,000 miles of high-
    speed rail by 2035, to 43,000 miles.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ ``Annual Report 2019.'' Central Japan Railway Company.
    Accessible at https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/
    annualreport/_pdf/annualreport2019.pdf
        \22\ Ibid.
        \23\ ``SNCF Group 2019 Annual Results''. SNCF. Accessible at
    https://medias.sncf.com/sncfcom/finances/Publications_Groupe/
    SNCF_Group_Annual_Results_2019_Press_conf.pdf
        \24\ Ibid.
        \25\ Chen, Frank. ``China sets railway building spree in high-speed
    motion.'' Asia Times. Accessible at https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/
    china-sets-railway-building-spree-in-high-speed-motion/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. has one high-speed rail corridor and multiple rail
    lines that operate with high-speed trainsets. Amtrak's Acela
    service is capable of traveling up to 150 miles per hour--
    between Washington, D.C. and Boston, MA--but it operates at
    slower speeds due to century-old deteriorated infrastructure,
    poor alignments, and capacity constraints that prevent the
    corridor from dramatically increasing speeds. Acela 2.0 is
    expected to operate up to 160 miles per hour.\26\ Brightline
    Florida operates at 79 miles per hour but has plans to operate
    up to 125 miles per hour.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ ``Next Generation High-Speed Trains,'' Amtrak: The Northeast
    Corridor. Accessible at https://nec.amtrak.com/project/next-generation-
    high-speed-trains/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The focus of this hearing will center on six different
    projects or technologies; the Amtrak Acela, Texas Central High-
    Speed Rail, Brightline, Northeast Maglev, Virgin Hyperloop, and
    Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Texas Central High-Speed
    Rail aims to build and operate high-speed rail service between
    Dallas and Houston using technology that is owned by the
    Central Japan Railway Company (JRC). Brightline currently
    offers high-speed service in southern Florida and is proposing
    to connect Las Vegas, NV, and Victorville, CA. Both Texas
    Central and Brightline are steel wheel-on-steel rail
    technologies. Northeast Maglev plans to develop along the
    Northeast Corridor, and its magnetic levitation technology is
    similarly owned and developed by JRC. Virgin Hyperloop has
    testing sites in California and Nevada, and it completed the
    first successful test run in history in November 2020.
    Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HyperloopTT) is
    currently focused on the Great Lakes region, and aims to
    connect Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Virgin Hyperloop,
    HyperloopTT, and Northeast Maglev are licensing companies, and
    seek to sell the technology to a separate entity for
    construction and operation. Each of the project witnesses have
    been asked to provide total project costs and any requests for
    federal support in their testimony.
        In 2019, DOT launched the Non-Traditional and Emerging
    Transportation Technology (NETT) Council, created to identify
    and resolve jurisdictional and regulatory gaps in the
    development of new transportation technologies.\27\ As part of
    that work, in July 2020, the NETT Council released the Pathways
    to the Future of Transportation policy document, intending to
    serve as a clear roadmap for developers of cross-modal
    technologies.\28\ The Pathways document determined the Federal
    Railroad Administration (FRA) has the necessary tools and
    authorities to regulate and manage the safety of emerging
    technologies like hyperloop and maglev technology systems.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ ``Overview of the NETT Council,'' United States Department of
    Transportation. Accessible at https://www.transportation.gov/
    nettcouncil
        \28\ ``Pathways to the Future of Transportation: A Non-Traditional
    and Emerging Technology (NETT) Council Guidance Document.'' Office of
    the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation. July
    2020. Accessible at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
    files/2020-07/NETT_Pathways_jul20_final_3.pdf
        \29\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: BUY AMERICA AND LABOR PROTECTIONS

        Investment in high-speed rail provides opportunities not
    just for greater connectivity, but also for creating U.S.
    railroad and manufacturing jobs. Current statute authorizes
    several discretionary grant programs that are administered by
    the FRA to invest in passenger and freight railroad
    infrastructure. These grants include conditions; for example, a
    ``Buy America'' condition requires that 100 percent of the
    steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in a project funded by
    a FRA grant be made in the United States.\30\ Such requirements
    help ensure that federal investments benefit U.S. manufacturers
    and their employees, rather than manufacturers overseas. FRA
    grant conditions also ensure workers are paid prevailing wages
    when a project funded by a FRA grant uses a railroad right-of-
    way.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ 49 USC 29905(a)
        \31\ 49 USC 22905(c)(2)(A)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Statutes governing FRA grant programs also require that
    those conducting rail operations over rail infrastructure
    constructed or improved with funding provided in whole or in
    part by a FRA grant be considered a ``rail carrier'' for
    purposes of Title 49 of United States Code and certain
    railroad-specific statutes.\32\ Among others, these statutes
    include the Railway Labor Act, which governs the relationship
    between rail carriers and their employees; the Railroad
    Retirement Act, which provides retirement benefits that are in
    lieu of Social Security benefits; and the Railroad Unemployment
    Insurance Act, which provides unemployment benefits in lieu of
    state-administered unemployment benefits, as well as sickness
    benefits. FRA grants are also conditioned on other
    requirements, some of which relate to conditions established
    decades ago.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ 49 USC 22905(b)
        \33\ Other conditions are provided in 49 USC 22905, including
    22905(c)(2)(B) which relates to the conditions in Section 504 of the
    Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 45 USC 836.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  WITNESS LIST

                                    Panel I

          The Honorable John Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary,
    Department of Transportation
          Ms. Rachel Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer,
    Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
          Mr. Phillip Washington, Chief Executive Officer, Los
    Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
          Ms. Danielle Eckert, International Representative,
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
          The Honorable Carbett ``Trey'' Duhon III, Judge, Waller
    County, Texas
          Mr. Andy Kunz, President and Chief Executive Officer,
    U.S. High Speed Rail Association

                                    Panel II

          Mr. Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive
    Officer, Texas Central High Speed Rail
          Mr. William Flynn, Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak
          Mr. Josh Giegel, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder,
    Virgin Hyperloop
          Mr. Andres de Leon, Chief Executive Officer, Hyperloop
    Transportation Technologies
          Mr. Michael Reininger, Chief Executive Officer,
    Brightline Trains
          Mr. Wayne Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
    Northeast Maglev

      WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND
          CHALLENGES OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL TECHNOLOGIES

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
                                             Materials,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in
    2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Donald M.
    Payne, Jr. (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Mr. Payne, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Malinowski,
    Mr. Moulton, Ms. Newman, Mr. Carson, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr.
    Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Strickland, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
    Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Auchincloss,
    Mr. Allred, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Rodney
    Davis, Mr. Weber, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Fitzpatrick,
    Mr. Burchett, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Nehls, and Mrs.
    Steel.
        Mr. Payne. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask
    unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare a
    recess at any time during today's hearing. Without objection,
    so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on
    the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted unless
    speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
    will request that the Member please mute their microphone. To
    insert a document into the record, please have your staff email
    it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
        Well, good morning. And I am excited to kick off my second
    committee hearing of this Congress as the new chairman. Thanks
    to the bold vision of President Biden, we stand at the
    crossroads of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform
    the Nation's passenger rail network and bring it into the 21st
    century.
        The title of today's hearing says it all: unlimited
    potential of emerging technologies in high-speed rail. From
    hyperloop to bullet trains to magnetic levitation, we will hear
    about transformative technologies from distinguished panels of
    policy experts and leaders of high-speed rail projects.
        Imagine being able to hop on a train in Newark at 9 a.m. in
    the morning and make it to Washington in time for today's
    hearing at 11 a.m. High-speed rail could be the technology that
    fully unlocks the potential of passenger rail travel in this
    country.
        Other countries have integrated high-speed rail systems
    into their transportation networks, and the United States has
    the opportunity to do the same. We have led the world in
    innovation from breaking the sound barrier to winning the space
    race. There is nothing stopping us from applying the same
    perseverance to high-speed rail.
        But we also must confront the reality of limited resources.
    Even if we invested tens of billions of dollars that is in the
    American Jobs Plan, it will not be enough to fully implement
    every project that we will hear about today. That is why we
    must have today's conversation that could be the basis for
    tomorrow's solutions.
        This is not to say Congress hasn't taken action to help
    spur high-speed rail to deliver on the benefits that are
    possible. Congress has made significant investments that have
    made Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains operational. Last year,
    Chairman DeFazio ushered H.R. 2 through the House to invest $60
    billion in the U.S. rail system.
        Given President Biden's call for even more rail funding, I
    am proposing to robustly fund high-speed rail planning and
    development in our surface transportation reauthorization
    package. It is time the United States makes a long-term bold
    effort to bring greater mobility to the Nation.
        If we invest in easy access to an interconnected rail
    network, it will create thousands of jobs. Communities will
    benefit from the implementation of high-speed rail. However, we
    must ensure the benefits are equitably distributed and
    underserved communities are not left out in the cold.
        Equity in high-speed rail also means a fair shot for
    minority-owned businesses to obtain work that comes from the
    implementation of these projects. We have assembled a wide
    roster of witnesses for a robust discussion of high-speed rail.
    I want to hear why it is good policy to invest in high-speed
    rail. I want to hear how these technologies could redefine
    short- and long-distance travel.
        And I finally want to hear about how these technologies can
    be made available to all Americans. It is my hope that Members
    gain a better understanding of the promise that high-speed rail
    represents, and how it can be a positive force for change. So I
    hope you will join me in this subcommittee's effort to
    appreciate the rail technologies of the future.
        [Mr. Payne's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in
       Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chair, Subcommittee on
                 Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
        Good morning. I'm excited to kick off my second subcommittee
    hearing of this Congress as the new Chair.
        Thanks to the bold vision of President Biden, we stand at the
    crossroads of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform this
    nation's passenger rail network and bring it into the 21st century.
        The title of today's hearing says it all. Unlimited Potential of
    emerging technologies in High-Speed Rail.
        From hyperloop to bullet trains to magnetic levitation, we will
    hear about transformative technologies from distinguished panels of
    policy experts and leaders of High-Speed Rail projects.
        Imagine being able to hop on a train in Newark at 9 in the morning
    and make it to Washington in time for today's 11 a.m. hearing.
        High-Speed Rail could be the technology that fully unlocks the
    potential of passenger rail travel in this country.
        Other countries have integrated High-Speed Rail systems into their
    transportation networks and the United States has an opportunity to do
    the same.
        We have led the world in innovation from breaking the sound barrier
    to winning the space race. There is nothing stopping us from applying
    that same perseverance to High-Speed Rail.
        But we also must confront the reality of limited resources.
        Even if we invest the tens of billions of dollars that is in the
    American Jobs Plan, it will not be enough to fully implement every
    project we will hear about today.
        That is why we must have today's conversations that could be the
    basis for tomorrow's solutions.
        That is not to say Congress hasn't taken action to help spur High-
    Speed Rail to deliver on the benefits that are possible.
        Congress has made significant rail investments that has made
    Amtrak's higher-speed Acela trains operational.
        Last year, Chair DeFazio ushered H.R. 2 through the House, to
    invest $60 billion in the U.S. rail system.
        Given President Biden's call for even more rail funding, I am
    proposing to robustly fund high-speed rail planning and development in
    our surface transportation reauthorization package. It is time the
    United States makes a long-term bold effort to bring greater mobility
    to the nation.
        If we invest in easy access to an interconnected rail network, it
    will create thousands of jobs, communities will benefit from the
    implementation of High-Speed Rail.
        However, we must ensure that these benefits are equitably
    distributed and underserved communities are not left out in the cold.
        Equity in High-Speed Rail also means a fair shot for minority-owned
    businesses to obtain work that comes from the implementation of these
    projects.
        We have assembled a wide roster of witnesses for a robust
    discussion of High-Speed Rail.
        I want to hear why it is good policy to invest in High-Speed Rail.
        I want to hear how these technologies could redefine short and
    long-distance travel.
        And finally, I want to hear about how these technologies can be
    made available to all Americans.
        It is my hope that Members gain a better understanding of the
    promise that High-Speed Rail represents and how it can be a positive
    force for change.
        So I hope you will all join me in this subcommittee's effort to
    appreciate the rail technologies of the future.

        Mr. Payne. Now, I call on the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Crawford, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you
    holding this hearing today and thank the witnesses for
    participating as well. Today's hearing will discuss the state
    of high-speed rail and other emerging technologies in our U.S.
    passenger rail networks.
        Today's hearing will discuss investments and innovation in
    our rail infrastructure are essential to building a robust and
    competitive American transportation system. However, we must
    ensure that any Federal policies and funding are balanced with
    a realistic analysis of the needs, consumer demand, and the
    best use of taxpayer dollars.
        There is no better example of these important factors not
    being properly considered than the California high-speed rail
    project that was originally proposed to run between Los Angeles
    and San Francisco.
        The venture, once estimated to cost $33 billion and be
    completed in 2020, is now projected to cost over $100 billion
    with an estimated completion date still over a decade away. The
    project has been plagued by a failure to account for actual
    cost and work associated with obtaining land to build a track,
    eminent domain, environmental concerns, and whether low
    consumer demand will require permanent Government subsidies to
    support the line.
        While the California high-speed rail project shows the
    failures of poor planning, there are promising opportunities
    for the Federal Government to foster new rail technologies that
    are fiscally responsible and responsive to the needs of
    consumers. The Federal Government should look to leverage
    successful existing programs that support our rail system, such
    as funding the CRISI and section 130 grant programs.
        The private sector also plays an important role in growing
    our rail network, and we will hear from witnesses about those
    promising efforts.
        I look forward to discussing both the challenges and the
    opportunities of new rail transportation and technology, as
    well as how Congress can provide robust oversight and safeguard
    taxpayer dollars that support these projects.
        [Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
          in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member,
         Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
        Thank you, Chair Payne, for holding this hearing, and thank you to
    our witnesses for participating today. Today's hearing will discuss the
    state of high-speed rail and other emerging technologies in our U.S.
    passenger rail networks.
        Investments and innovation in our rail infrastructure are essential
    to building a robust and competitive American transportation system.
    However, we must ensure that any federal policies and funding are
    balanced with a realistic analysis of the needs, consumer demand, and
    best use of taxpayer dollars.
        There is no better example of these important factors not being
    properly considered than the California High-Speed Rail project that
    was originally proposed to run between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
        The venture, once estimated to cost $33 billion and be completed in
    2020, is now projected to cost over $100 billion, with an estimated
    completion date still over a decade away.
        The project has been plagued by a failure to account for actual
    costs and work associated with obtaining land to build the track,
    eminent domain, environmental concerns, and whether low consumer demand
    will require permanent government subsidies to support the line.
        While the California High-Speed Rail project shows the failures of
    poor planning, there are promising opportunities for the federal
    government to foster new rail technologies that are fiscally
    responsible and respond to the needs of consumers.
        The federal government should look to leverage successful existing
    programs that support our rail system, such as funding the CRISI and
    Section 130 grant programs.
        The private sector also plays an important role in growing our rail
    network, and we will hear from witnesses about those promising efforts.
        I look forward to discussing both the challenges and the
    opportunities of new rail transportation and technology, as well as how
    Congress can provide robust oversight and safeguard taxpayer dollars
    that support these projects.

        Mr. Crawford. Thank you to the witnesses for being here
    today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back. And now we will
    recognize the chairman of the whole committee, Chairman
    DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
    opportunity today. I am excited about the prospects for this
    hearing. Basically we are looking at I would say four
    categories of rail: one I call higher speed rail, high-speed
    rail, magnetic levitation, and then obviously new and
    innovative technologies like hyperloop.
        They all hold promise in different applications and
    different places. Higher speed rail which would be basically
    existing Amtrak--I will use the example of Talgo train sets we
    run here between Oregon and Washington State. They can go 120
    miles an hour.
        I am 112 miles from Portland. Theoretically then I could be
    there in less than an hour. If you could get to Portland in
    less than an hour, I think you would see a massive hemorrhaging
    of people away from the overcrowded Interstate 5 which
    frequently is blocked with accidents or traffic jams onto a
    dependable service.
        Now, we don't even have to realize the full potential of
    it. If I could reliably get there in 2 hours--because on a
    really good day I could get there in 1 hour and 50 minutes on
    I-5--then I would never ever, ever get on I-5 again.
        And I know there are many thousands of other Oregonians--
    and this line--ultimately, this was one of the first designated
    under the Swift Act back in 1994--Al Swift, a colleague from
    Washington State, a wonderful old curmudgeon, created this
    program and one of the first high-speed rail routes in America.
        And there are a couple of witnesses who are a little short
    on their testimony because they say Portland to Vancouver or
    Portland to Seattle. That route, which got designated in 1994,
    is Eugene, Oregon--the second largest city--to Vancouver, BC.
        Precious little progress has been made particularly by my
    State who I don't think has even yet chosen a route. But there
    is tremendous potential in higher speed rail, let alone high-
    speed rail.
        You know, many years ago when I was a younger man, I
    traveled a bit with less constraint than this job. I was in
    Spain, and they had trains essentially like ours--crappy, old,
    slow trains. Then they built one route. It ran from Madrid down
    to the coast. And after a while everybody in Spain rode on it
    once or twice. They said, yeah, I want that.
        They now have a high-speed network, goes around the whole
    country, and has changed economics, demographics, and the
    economy phenomenally. People can live in an affordable place
    more than 100 miles outside of Madrid and reliably get to work
    in a very short period of time.
        We have similar opportunities--and we will hear about one
    later today in the Los Angeles Basin linking a line out of L.A.
    to a high-speed line coming down from Las Vegas which has
    tremendous potential. There are other projects around the
    country that we will hear from today.
        Rail could be a solution. VDOT--Virginia Department of
    Transportation--gave testimony I guess 6 or 7 weeks ago before
    the committee. The Secretary was very compelling. They
    evaluated 95 South, and they said wow, you know, the traffic is
    just always backed up.
        We could add one lane each way--$10 to $12 billion. By the
    time we finish adding the lanes, congestion will be as bad as
    it is today. That would be about 10 years from now or we could
    look at somehow enhancing--it will be difficult--rail
    commuting. And they got into discussions with CSX, and they
    came to an agreement. It is going to both enhance the CSX
    network and help with the commuter trains.
        And they are actually going to build a new bridge over the
    Potomac River. Now--it is very expensive. This whole thing is
    going to cost $4 or $5 billion. Well, that is half the cost of
    adding the two lanes to the freeway that won't solve the
    problem, and this will provide much more benefit--benefit for
    commuters, benefit for the economy, benefit for the environment
    when we eliminate all those single occupancy automobiles.
        So we have got to look around the country. And part of the
    bill is to make DOTs--because a lot of DOTs are stuck in the
    Eisenhower era. And it is like woah, well we will just lay more
    concrete. We will lay more asphalt. We will widen to eight
    lanes here. We will go to 10 lanes. And you build it, and they
    come. And then you are back where you started.
        I have met with communities in Texas who believe that there
    are linkages between cities there that could solve some of
    their worst freeway problems and highway problems in Texas. And
    I have heard this echoed around the country. I mean Florida,
    they are looking at linking Miami to Orlando in the not too
    distant future with Brightline.
        There are a lot of exciting things going on, but where is
    the Federal Government? Where has the Federal Government been?
    The Chinese are investing over $100 billion a year--of course a
    lot of it is our money for their trade deficit--so they can
    afford it--in their rail system for high-speed rail.
        What are we investing? We are doing nothing. And when you
    invest nothing, you get nothing. We can't say oh, yeah, well
    back in the Obama era they put up all this money for high-speed
    rail and California screwed it up.
        Well, yeah, I mean greenfield projects--they did not
    anticipate all the problems that would come with that. And they
    were very poorly managed to begin with. They have gotten their
    act together now, but there has been a lot lost there.
        But that should not be the example for the country or we
    should say just because of one project that didn't proceed as
    projected that we are going to pin these hopes all around the
    United States. And investing once every other decade a small
    amount of money is not going to get us there.
        I would like to see larger sums than have been proposed by
    the Biden administration in the high-speed rail category
    personally. But we also need to enhance the loan programs, the
    TIFIA programs, and others--the RRIF program--that we can look
    at investments in these areas.
        We have put aggregate with essentially post-World War II--I
    want to say the Eisenhower program--$2 trillion--trillion--into
    highways invested by the Federal Government--a lot of money--
    put post-World War II $777 billion into aviation, airports,
    runways, air traffic control, et cetera. And we have put about
    $90 billion total into rail.
        And so we wonder why we have a decrepit, pathetic network
    in this country--Amtrak struggling with infrastructure that is
    failing. I took the committee up to New York between
    Washington, DC, and Boston, I think there's $48 billion of
    deferred maintenance, some of which could fail
    catastrophically--the tunnel under Baltimore is one example and
    replacing that tunnel.
        And they have plans to do it with straighten line would
    increase speeds through that section, cut a significant amount
    of time off the road. But, hey, you know, we put a lot of money
    into that tunnel back in 1872. We can't just jump out there and
    build a new one, can we. Really? Great engineers in 1872, but
    it is time to get into the 21st century.
        So that is what this hearing is about today. Let's talk
    about 21st-century technology, 21st-century solutions, not
    1950s, not 1870s--the 21st century. And let's make America once
    again a world leader in all forms of transportation as we used
    to be.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
          Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you Chair Payne and Ranking Member Crawford for holding this
    timely hearing.
        We are here today to discuss the once-in-a-generation opportunity
    we have before us. This hearing comes at a time when we can
    meaningfully invest in a truly transformative form of transportation--
    high-speed rail. You'll often hear me say that if I could count on the
    train trip being under two hours and on-time from Eugene to Portland, I
    would never fly that route or drive on I-5 again. I know it's the same
    for millions of people throughout this country.
        For years the preferred solution to relieving traffic congestion
    was to add more highway lanes. But, as the Secretary of the Virginia
    Department of Transportation testified at the last rail hearing, it is
    far more impactful and less expensive to invest in passenger rail. And
    now we have a welcome and necessary development with high-speed rail--
    the next logical step in tackling congestion.
        Unfortunately, the United States is far behind the curve. Our
    friends in Europe and Asia are decades ahead of us in developing high-
    speed rail. The Japanese have a train that travels over 300 miles an
    hour. And the Chinese are spending $115 billion dollars per year on
    high-speed rail. They claim they're going to complete 43,000 miles of
    high-speed track by 2035. We are investing a tiny fraction of that in
    all of our rail investments. If high-speed rail can work globally, we
    can make it work here.
        We need to keep up with the competition. And the demand is there--
    people want to get back to riding the rails. Before the pandemic,
    Amtrak continually set new records for ridership--with more than 32.5
    million passenger trips in fiscal year 2019 alone--a major feat
    considering how we force Amtrak to fight with one hand behind its back
    against freight congestion, knee-capped by embarrassingly low federal
    support. Lower trip times enabled by high-speed rail will induce even
    more demand.
        And increased ridership will benefit our climate. Intercity
    passenger rail is inherently better for the environment than driving or
    flying. Traveling on the electrified Northeast Corridor system emits 83
    percent less greenhouse gas emissions than driving and up to 73 percent
    less than flying. Investing in high-speed rail will contribute to lower
    emissions and a smaller carbon footprint. We need to start looking at
    rail as a central part of the solution to climate change.
        We haven't made a meaningful investment in high-speed rail since
    2009, and even those funds were spread too thin. Meager sums every few
    years is neither smart nor sustainable investing. Dedicated predictable
    funding is essential to bold infrastructure investment. That is why I
    am pleased that President Biden has called for more passenger rail
    funding in the next surface reauthorization.
        Congress needs to remain focused on developing a national program.
    After all, it was a national vision that led to the creation of our
    highways and aviation networks, spurring unprecedented economic growth,
    connecting urban and rural communities alike, and creating millions of
    jobs. At the time, that was also a pie-in-the-sky undertaking. Now we
    can't imagine life without it. Rail is the next step.
        I know we'll hear from today's witnesses about how federal
    investments in high-speed rail are also investments in the American
    workforce. To make sure that's the case, federal high-speed rail
    dollars will come with the same non-negotiable conditions that
    currently apply to other federal rail funding, such as Buy America. You
    won't find a stronger Buy America advocate than me, and I won't allow
    high-speed rail to be an exception to our domestic procurement rule.
        These projects should support our nation's rail workforce, while
    expanding the reach of federal investments into the communities where
    workers spend their money. Any consideration of the economic benefits
    of high-speed rail must include downstream effects, as well as the many
    construction jobs created by rail expansion.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
    opportunity we have before us to get high-speed rail right.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. We will now turn to our
    witnesses. We will be hearing testimony from witnesses on two
    panels today with each panel followed by questions from
    Members.
        I would like now to welcome the witnesses on the first
    panel: the Honorable John Porcari, former Deputy Secretary,
    United States Department of Transportation; Ms. Rachel Smith,
    president and chief executive officer of Seattle Metropolitan
    Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Phillip Washington, chief executive
    officer of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
    Authority; Ms. Danielle Eckert, international representative of
    the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the
    Honorable Carbett ``Trey'' Duhon III, judge, Waller County,
    Texas; and Andy Kunz, president and chief executive officer of
    the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. Thank you for joining us
    today, and I look forward to your testimony.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
    made part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
    limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Porcari, you may proceed.

      TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY,
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RACHEL SMITH, PRESIDENT AND
       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SEATTLE METROPOLITAN CHAMBER OF
     COMMERCE; PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LOS
    ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DANIELLE
    ECKERT, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE
    AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; HON.
    CARBETT J. ``TREY'' DUHON III, JUDGE, WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS; AND
      ANDY KUNZ, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. HIGH
                         SPEED RAIL ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Porcari. Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford,
    members of the subcommittee, Chairman DeFazio, thanks for the
    opportunity to testify today on this important topic. My name
    is John Porcari.
        I have had the opportunity to serve in a number of
    transportation and economic development-related positions in
    the public and private sectors, including the honor of serving
    as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation
    and twice serving as secretary of the Maryland Department of
    Transportation.
        It is my strong belief that high-speed rail systems, higher
    speed city pairs, and emerging technologies all play an
    important part in a more equitable, climate-friendly
    transportation system that builds tomorrow's economy. If you
    wonder why America's transportation system is configured the
    way it is today, I would urge you to follow the money.
        Allow me to illustrate the point from personal experience.
    The Maryland Department of Transportation is uniquely organized
    as a multimodal State transportation organization including
    highway, transit, aviation, passenger rail, and other
    components under one roof and served by a unified, flexible
    State transportation trust fund. That single trust fund
    provides funds for every transportation mode using revenues
    from every transportation source.
        As I evaluated ways to increase capacity in the Baltimore-
    New York City corridor, these were my choices: I could add air
    capacity between BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport and New York
    with 90 percent Federal funding for runway and taxiway
    improvements; I could add highway capacity of I-95 to New York
    with 80 percent Federal funding; or add passenger rail capacity
    with zero Federal funding. For that 215-mile segment, a
    passenger rail trip makes far more sense than driving or
    flying, yet passenger rail capacity was the least likely
    alternative to be selected.
        So if you wonder why we have the unbalanced transportation
    system we have today, follow the money. Seen in that light, it
    is an extraordinary statement of State priorities that the
    California High-Speed Rail Authority's 2030 business plan
    anticipates 85 percent of its funding from State sources and
    only 15 percent Federal funding for this project of national
    and regional significance.
        This is a remarkable State financial commitment, and a
    clear declaration of the State's project priorities. Yet there
    is no ongoing sustained Federal financial partner of this
    multiyear program of projects.
        To match the people-carrying capacity of phase 1 of the
    high-speed rail system, California would need to invest $122 to
    $199 billion towards building almost 4,200 highway lane-miles--
    the equivalent of a new six-lane highway--and the construction
    of 91 new airport gates and 2 new runways.
        The San Francisco-Los Angeles air route is already the
    ninth busiest in the world and the busiest air route in
    America. Doesn't it make sense to prioritize this finite and
    expensive airport capacity for transcontinental and
    international flights? For California, the $122 to $199 billion
    of required highway and airport capacity as an alternative to
    high-speed rail is double the $69 to $99 billion cost estimate
    of phase 1 of the high-speed rail system.
        The genius of federalism as it applies to our
    transportation system is that States and local jurisdictions
    make the project choices that are best for their particular
    needs. These local project choices aggregate into a national
    transportation system.
        While States and local jurisdictions across the country
    have raised significant new revenues over the last decade, they
    still require a Federal funding partner for any significant
    capital project. Providing real transportation choices at the
    local and State level requires the establishment of a passenger
    rail trust fund on par with our Highway Trust Fund and Airport
    and Airway Trust Fund.
        A rail trust fund will solidify and encourage local
    decisionmaking and project choices for those jurisdictions that
    choose to prioritize passenger rail.
        Decades of multiyear Federal funding gave America the
    world's best aviation system. Likewise, our Interstate Highway
    System grew from initially disconnected city pairs into today's
    national network only with the guaranteed financial
    contribution of the Federal Government.
        A passenger rail trust fund would do the same for community
    growth and development in towns and cities across the country
    while building U.S. manufacturing and technological leadership.
    There are public- and private-sector passenger rail projects
    currently being proposed in every region of the country.
        A consistent, predictable Federal funding partner will
    jumpstart those projects encouraging new technologies, mutually
    beneficial collaborations with our freight railroads, and
    innovations in investment, construction, and operations models.
        A high-speed rail network built on local choices requires a
    level financial playing field. Establishing a passenger rail
    trust fund is the way to do it. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify today. I will be happy to answer any questions.
        [Mr. Porcari's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary,
                       U.S. Department of Transportation
        Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the
    subcommittee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important
    topic. My name is John Porcari and I have had the opportunity to serve
    in a number of transportation and economic development-related
    positions in the public and private sectors, including the honor of
    serving as Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of
    Transportation and twice serving as Secretary of the Maryland
    Department of Transportation.
        You are all well aware of the external forces driving unprecedented
    change in our transportation system, including the existential threat
    of climate change, the imperative to build a more equitable
    transportation system for all Americans, the greater appreciation of
    how transportation projects are a foundational investment in a stronger
    economic future, and the growing recognition that a balanced
    transportation system with a variety of mobility choices is an integral
    component of our quality of life.
        It is my strong belief that high speed rail systems, higher speed
    intercity rail city/town pairs, and emerging technologies must all play
    an important part in our future transportation system.
        If you wonder why America's transportation system is configured the
    way it is today, I would urge you to follow the money. Allow me to
    illustrate the point from personal experience.
        The Maryland Department of Transportation is uniquely organized as
    a multi-modal state transportation organization including highway,
    transit, aviation, passenger rail and other components under one roof
    and served by a unified, flexible state transportation trust fund
    (TTF). That single TTF provides funds for every transportation mode,
    using revenues from every transportation source.
        As I evaluated ways to increase capacity in the Baltimore-New York
    City corridor, these were my choices:
          Add air capacity between BWI Thurgood Marshall airport
    and New York, with 90% Federal funding for runway and taxiway capacity
    improvements;
          Add highway capacity on I-95 to New York, with 80%
    Federal funding;
          Add passenger rail capacity, with zero Federal funding.

        In other words, I had to find either 10%, 20% or 100% of the
    project funding from the state's transportation trust fund, depending
    on the transportation mode I chose. For that 215-mile segment, a
    passenger rail trip makes far more sense than driving or flying, yet
    passenger rail capacity was the least likely alternative to be
    selected.
        If you wonder why we have the unbalanced transportation system we
    have today, follow the money.
        Seen in that light, it is an extraordinary statement of state
    priorities that the California High Speed Rail Authority's 2030
    business plan anticipates 85% of its funding from state sources, and
    only 15% Federal funding (from one-time sources) for this project of
    national and regional significance. The state of California has
    designated a quarter of all of their statewide cap-and-trade revenues
    for the project. This is a remarkable state financial commitment, and a
    clear declaration of the state's project priorities. Yet there is no
    ongoing, sustained Federal financial partnership for this multi-year
    program of projects, which also features significant economic
    development components such as local employment, skills training,
    support of US manufacturing, has immediate economic benefits for the
    Central Valley, and longer term economic benefits for the state and
    country.
        California's carefully considered choice, endorsed by citizen
    referendum, to build high speed rail between the Los Angeles and San
    Francisco Bay regions makes eminent sense, yet has to move forward
    without the same kind of Federal commitment that ultimately built an
    aviation system that is the envy of the world and an interstate system
    that provided the foundation for a generation of economic prosperity.
        According to the California High Speed Rail Authority's business
    plan, to match the people-carrying capacity of Phase 1 of the high
    speed rail system, California would need to invest $122 to $199 billion
    toward building 4,196 highway lane miles (the equivalent of a new, six
    lane highway), and the construction of 91 new airport gates and 2 new
    runways. The San Francisco-Los Angeles air route is already the 9th
    busiest in the world, and the busiest route in America. Doesn't it make
    sense to prioritize this finite (and expensive) airport capacity for
    transcontinental and international flights?
        For California, the $122-199 billion of required highway and
    airport capacity as an alternative is double the $69-99 billion
    estimate for Phase 1 of the high speed rail system. Yet this clear
    state policy choice has to run against the headwinds of existing
    Federal transportation funding. Other proposed high speed rail projects
    throughout the country face the same fundamental imbalance in
    transportation funding.
        The genius of federalism as it applies to our transportation system
    is that states and local jurisdictions make the project choices that
    are best for their particular needs. These local project choices
    aggregate into a national transportation system. We fully expect
    Mississippi and Michigan, Colorado and Connecticut to choose project
    priorities that make the most sense for them. In practice, however,
    project choices by states and regions are limited to those that have a
    Federal funding component. While states and local jurisdictions across
    the country have raised significant new revenues over the last decade,
    they still require a Federal funding partner for any significant
    capital project.
        Providing real transportation choices at the local and state levels
    requires the establishment of a passenger rail trust fund on par with
    our highway trust fund and airport & airway trust fund. For those of us
    who strongly believe that project choices should be made at the state
    and local level, the establishment of this third trust fund would for
    the first time enable local jurisdictions to advance projects that are
    truly their priorities for the future. A rail trust fund will solidify
    and encourage local--not Washington-based--decision making and project
    choices for those jurisdictions that choose to prioritize passenger
    rail.
        Decades of multi-year funding certainty gave America the world's
    best aviation system, with local, regional and state decision-makers
    able to plan, design and construct airport projects with the certainty
    of a continuing Federal funding partner. Likewise, our interstate
    highway system grew from initially disconnected city pairs into today's
    national network only with the guaranteed financial contribution of the
    Federal Government. These two ongoing commitments have, in turn, built
    the airlines, air freight and trucking industries that have helped
    transform America's economy. The consistency and predictability of a
    passenger rail trust fund will do the same for community growth and
    development in towns and cities across the country, while building US
    manufacturing and technological leadership.
        We should welcome and encourage passenger rail system growth at the
    local and regional level where it makes sense for those jurisdictions.
    States and the private sector are evaluating or moving to design and
    construction of projects like Cascadia high speed rail to serve
    Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.; Texas high speed rail between
    Dallas and Houston; high speed passenger service on the east coast of
    Florida; and additional city/town pairs for Amtrak's cross country
    network. A consistent, predictable Federal funding partner will
    encourage new technologies, mutually beneficial collaboration with our
    freight railroads, and innovations in investment, construction and
    operations.
        A high speed passenger rail network built on local choices requires
    a level playing field. We need to acknowledge this fundamental
    imbalance in our available transportation choices, and correct it for
    the benefit of our nation's continued growth and prosperity for
    generations to come.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to
    answer any questions.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you. I know that our subcommittee vice
    chair, Ms. Strickland, would have liked to extend an extra warm
    welcome to Ms. Smith who succeeded the congresswoman as the
    president and CEO of the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce.
        It is great to see your leadership here. And please provide
    us with your testimony, Ms. Smith.
        Ms. Smith. Well, good morning and thank you, Chairman
    Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, distinguished members of the
    committee, and Chairman DeFazio. I am grateful for the
    opportunity to speak today on the enormous potential of high-
    speed rail across the country and specifically the benefits of
    Cascadia Ultra-High-Speed Rail connecting riders in one of the
    fastest growing regions in North America, from Vancouver, BC,
    to Seattle to Portland, and ultimately to other points south--
    Salem, Eugene, and northern California.
        My name is Rachel Smith, and I am the president and CEO of
    the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. The Seattle Metro
    Chamber is the largest and most diverse business association in
    the Puget Sound region representing over 2,500 companies and a
    regional workforce of approximately 750,000.
        Our region is a deeply interconnected one. The nearly 9
    million people living in the Cascadia Corridor, up to BC,
    through Washington State, and south to Oregon, do not live
    their lives--or do their business--by city, county, or even
    national boundaries. And the way we address challenges and
    seize opportunities for more equitable transportation, land
    use, housing, and economic centers should and does reflect
    that.
        For our region's business community, those challenges and
    opportunities are why we believe in the transformative power of
    rail and why the Seattle Metro Chamber has been an early
    supporter of high-speed rail in the Cascadia Corridor.
        Fast, frequent, and reliable rail is an economic
    competitiveness tool for any region. Providing people with
    alternatives to sitting in traffic, mobility options to move
    seamlessly from work to home to reactional activities, and
    building community around modern transit technology helps
    attract talent and adds to the vibrancy of the community. It
    also frees up precious highway and road space for the movement
    of goods from our farms and manufacturing centers to the hearts
    of our cities and towns.
        Rail is also a significant tool in our efforts to combat
    climate change, reducing emissions from cars. In our region,
    rail is often powered by clean hydro or other renewable energy
    sources. It also impacts land use. The transportation you build
    defines the land use you will live with, and rail is a tool for
    supporting growth where we want it and creating connections to
    job centers for everyone.
        Investment in rail, and transit generally, is also
    fundamentally an investment in equity. It provides access for
    historically underresourced communities to educational and job
    opportunities. It also allows for the creation of equitable
    transit-oriented development--using a station as an anchor for
    mixed-use, mixed-income development where everyone has mobility
    opportunities whether they live in affordable or market-rate
    housing units.
        And finally, high-speed rail can provide the physical
    manifestation of the three things the Seattle Metro Chamber,
    our region, and this country, are laser-focused on: innovation,
    green jobs, and economic recovery. A project like this creates
    thousands of jobs; not just jobs that require an engineering
    degree, but also construction jobs that come with training and
    transferable skills for people to make a living wage for
    themselves and their families.
        Not every corner of the country is ready for high-speed
    rail right now, but in the Puget Sound region and the Cascadia
    Corridor, we are. And we have already got a head start. In my
    former role as deputy county executive for King County, we had
    the opportunity to work with one of our biggest and best local
    companies, Microsoft, who has been a champion for the Cascadia
    Corridor Ultra-High-Speed Rail idea.
        After securing funding for initial studies from the
    Washington State Legislature, which confirmed feasibility,
    viability, and demand for the project, we are on our way, and
    what our region learns can be used by other regions around the
    country.
        This project can serve as a model for how high-speed rail
    can help a region grow affordably and sustainably, and it would
    also serve as an important step towards building a domestic
    capability for high-speed rail and the good jobs this industry
    could generate.
        And to paint the picture more clearly, the Cascadia Ultra-
    High-Speed Rail would make connections at speeds of up to 250
    miles per hour. Conservative estimates put ridership at between
    2 to 3 million riders annually with a reduction of 6 million
    metric tons of CO2 emissions over the first 40 years. Three
    hundred fifty-five billion dollars in economic growth is
    projected with 200,000 new jobs related to construction and
    ongoing operation.
        We are prepared to build a coalition of support, refined
    vision, and secure early funding and agreements to make this
    picture a reality. We have a strong foundation to build on with
    support from the Governors of Washington and Oregon as well as
    the Premier of British Columbia. We also appreciate the
    interests in the promise of high-speed rail from Members of the
    Washington delegation, including Vice Chair Strickland and
    Representative Rick Larsen as well as Representatives Suzan
    DelBene who has been one of the original sponsors of the
    American High-Speed Rail Act.
        We have a history in the Seattle region of working together
    to deliver on big ideas. And we believe that high-speed rail is
    a key ingredient in fulfilling that vision--a vision of a
    region full of economic opportunity for all. Thank you very
    much for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to
    answer questions.
        [Ms. Smith's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Rachel Smith, President and Chief Executive
               Officer, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
        Good morning and thank you, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford
    and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am grateful for the
    opportunity to speak today on the enormous potential of high-speed rail
    across the country, and specifically, the benefits of a Cascadia Ultra
    High Speed Corridor rail line connecting riders in one of the fastest-
    growing regions in North America, from Vancouver BC to Seattle to
    Portland, and ultimately to other points south: Salem, Eugene, and
    northern California.
        My name is Rachel Smith and I am the President and CEO of the
    Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. The Seattle Metro Chamber is
    the largest and most diverse business association in the Puget Sound
    region, representing over 2,500 companies and a regional workforce of
    approximately 750,000.
        Our region is a deeply interconnected one. The nearly 9 million
    people living in the Cascadia corridor, up to BC, through Washington
    state, and south to Oregon, do not live their lives--or do their
    business--by city, county, or even national boundaries. And the way we
    address challenges and seize opportunities for more equitable
    transportation, land use, housing, and economic centers should and does
    reflect that.
        For our region's business community, those challenges and
    opportunities are why we believe in the transformative power of rail,
    and why the Seattle Metro Chamber has been an early supporter of high
    speed rail in the Cascadia Corridor.
        Fast, frequent, and reliable rail is an economic competitiveness
    tool for any region. Providing people with alternatives to sitting in
    traffic, mobility to move seamlessly from work to home to recreational
    activities, and building community around modern transit technology
    helps attract talent and adds to the vibrancy of a community. It also
    frees up precious highway and road space for the efficient movement of
    goods from our farms and manufacturing centers to the hearts of our
    cities and towns.
        Rail is also a significant tool in our efforts to combat climate
    change, reducing emissions from cars. In our region, rail is often
    powered by clean hydro or other renewable energy sources. It also
    impacts land use; the transportation you build defines the land use you
    live with, and rail is a tool for supporting growth where we want it
    and creating connections to job centers for everyone.
        Investment in rail, and transit generally, is also fundamentally an
    investment in equity. It provides access for historically under-
    resourced communities to educational and job opportunities. It also
    allows for the creation of equitable transit oriented development--
    using a station as an anchor for mixed use, mixed income development,
    where everyone has mobility opportunities, whether they live in
    affordable or market-rate housing.
        And finally, high speed rail can provide the physical manifestation
    of three things the Seattle Metro Chamber, our region, and this
    country, are laser-focused on: innovation, green jobs, and economic
    recovery. A project like this creates thousands of jobs: not just jobs
    that require an engineering degree, but also construction jobs that
    come with training and transferable skills for people to make a living
    wage for themselves and their families.
        Not every corner of the country is ready for high speed rail right
    now--in the Puget Sound region and the Cascadia Corridor, we are.
        And we've already got a head start. In my former role as Deputy
    County Executive for the King County Executive, we had the opportunity
    to work with one of our biggest and best local companies, Microsoft,
    who led the inception of the Cascadia Corridor high speed rail idea.
    After securing funding for an initial study from the Washington State
    Legislature, followed by feasibility work confirming the demand for
    high speed rail and the viability of the project, we are on our way to
    this idea becoming a reality, and what our region learns along the way
    can be used in other regions around the country.
        This project can serve as a model for how high speed rail can help
    a region grow affordably and sustainably--and it would also serve as an
    important step toward building a domestic capability for high-speed
    rail and the good jobs this industry could generate.
        And to paint the picture more clearly: the Cascadia Ultra High
    Speed Corridor rail line would connect riders from Vancouver BC to
    Seattle to Portland at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour. Conservative
    estimates place ridership at between 2-3 million riders annually with
    reduction of 6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions over the first 40
    years. $355 billion in economic growth is projected with 200,000 new
    jobs related to construction and ongoing operation.
        We are prepared to build a coalition of support, refine the vision,
    and secure early funding and agreements to make this picture a reality.
    We have a strong foundation to build on, with support from the
    governors of Washington and Oregon as well as the premier of British
    Columbia. We also appreciate the interest in the promise of high speed
    rail from members of the Washington delegation, including Rep. Suzan
    DelBene, who is one of the original sponsors of the American High Speed
    Rail Act.
        We have a history in the Seattle region of working together to
    deliver on big ideas. With the need for recovery, it is more important
    than ever that we continue building a more deeply interconnected region
    full of economic opportunity for all. We believe that high speed rail
    is a key ingredient in fulfilling that vision.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you for your testimony.
        And now we recognize Mr. Washington for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Washington. Subcommittee Chair Payne, thank you.
    Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford, Chairman DeFazio, and all
    the honorable members of the subcommittee, it is a genuine
    honor to join you today at this important hearing.
        As a young man growing up in the Midwest and specifically
    on the South Side of Chicago, the story of the first
    transcontinental railroad was enough to capture my imagination
    of a vast America being connected for the first time by mighty
    rail engines. A connection that would enhance commerce, the
    ability of businesses and their employers to prosper from coast
    to coast, and also the ability for America to move across our
    great Nation with ease and comfort.
        For me, this moment in American history is best captured in
    a PBS show, ``American Experience,'' which included an article
    entitled ``The Impact of the Transcontinental Railroad'': ``The
    world was put on notice: the transcontinental railroad was
    completed and America was moving to the forefront of the
    world's stage.''
        With respect to the American experience with rail, whether
    it is light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, freight rail,
    long-haul rail, or short-haul rail, it still has the power to
    move America to the forefront of the world stage and to enhance
    our Nation in any number of ways.
        I say this because as the chief executive officer of the
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and
    before that the leader of Denver's Regional Transportation
    District, I have seen with my own eyes the power of rail to
    transform cities and bring a renewed quality of life and new
    business to areas once left for dead.
        There are four key benefits of high-speed rail if done
    right: number one, connecting rural areas with the urban core.
    Starting with the first Union Station built in 1851, major
    railroad stations have served to connect America and all
    Americans.
        With the advent of new technologies that offer both a
    faster rail system and safer rail system, high-speed rail can,
    and I believe will, serve to leverage the legacy of Union
    Stations across America and renew their purpose by offering a
    direct connection to the jobs that are often situated in urban
    cores across the United States.
        Today, in Los Angeles, our economic growth is compromised
    because access to jobs is sharply constrained--not because
    individuals do not have the skill sets needed for the job, and
    not because they don't have the education--it is usually
    because they do not have a way to get to those urban cores
    where the jobs are.
        Number two, renewing the American dream in the form of
    affordable, equitable housing. I am proud to share that L.A.
    Metro is a national leader in growing our transit system
    alongside transit-oriented communities. In recent years, scarce
    housing and limited transportation options have put the squeeze
    on working Americans resulting in rising housing costs and
    longer commutes.
        The good news is that through passage of Measure M here in
    Los Angeles County in 2016, we are building more mobility-
    enhancing projects. The second solution, in addition to
    providing more mobility, Metro is also building housing around
    this growing system.
        To date, we have built more than 2,100 housing units on
    Metro-owned land, 34 percent of which are affordable. This
    tells me that if we have a high-speed rail system, for example,
    the High Desert Corridor intercity rail project in northern Los
    Angeles County that can connect Apple Valley, unincorporated
    Los Angeles County, and Palmdale with our urban core and
    beyond, it would offer a chance for the American dream to be in
    reach again for a whole new generation of Americans.
        A high-speed rail project along the High Desert Rail
    Corridor would dramatically reduce commute times by connecting
    some of the fastest growing residential, commercial, and
    industrial areas in southern California.
        And number three, almost 2 years ago to this date on May
    16, 2019, I testified before the full committee of the House
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure at the
    invitation of Chairman DeFazio to discuss Metro's goal of
    establishing a rolling stock industrial park in L.A. County or
    what I have referred to as a ``Center for Transportation
    Excellence.''
        And in conclusion, a final point I would like to make is
    that if high-speed rail is done right, I believe that Congress
    can smartly use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends.
    That is, we can use the power of the Federal Government to
    adequately finance these great public works projects.
        Thank you so much for having me, and open to questions
    later on. Thank you so much.
        [Mr. Washington's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Phillip A. Washington, Chief Executive Officer,
            Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
                                 Introduction:
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee Chair Payne
    and Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford and honorable members of this
    subcommittee--it is a genuine honor to join you today at this important
    hearing.
                            Rail Connecting America:
        As a young man growing up in the Midwest--and specifically on the
    south side of Chicago--the story of the first transcontinental railroad
    was enough to capture my imagination of a vast America--being connected
    for the first time by mighty rail engines. A connection that would
    enhance commerce--the ability of businesses and their employees to
    prosper from coast to coast and also the ability for Americans to move
    across our great nation with ease and comfort. When Leland Stanford
    struck the ``last spike'' on May 10, 1869--which connected the Central
    Pacific Railroad with the Union Pacific Railroad--it was a historic
    event. Historic because this rail line would serve as a great bridge
    across America, a great bridge connecting America.
        For this reason, in 1957, Congress wisely established the Golden
    Spike National Historic Site and later authorized for Federal ownership
    and administration the area in and around Promontory Summit in Utah by
    an act of Congress on July 30, 1965. For me, this moment in American
    history was best captured in a PBS show the American Experience--which
    included an article entitled ``The Impact of the Transcontinental
    Railroad'' stating that ``The world was put on notice: the
    transcontinental railroad was completed and America was moving to the
    forefront of the world's stage.''
                  The American Experience With Rail Continues:
        I wanted to begin my testimony with a historical reference because
    I believe in William Faulkner's prescient words--``The past is never
    dead. It's not even past.''
        And that, I believe, is so very true with respect to the American
    experience with rail--whether it is light rail, heavy rail, commuter
    rail, freight rail, long haul rail or short haul rail--it still has the
    power to move America to the forefront of the world stage and to
    enhance our nation in any number of ways. I say this because as the
    Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
    Transportation Authority and before that the leader of Denver's
    Regional Transportation District--I have seen with my own eyes the
    power of rail to transform cities and bring a renewed quality of life--
    and new businesses--to areas once left for dead.
        For today's hearing, I want to lay out in a clear and concise
    manner why I believe high-speed rail--if done right--can serve our
    nation as well as the transcontinental railroad did in the mid-19th
    century. Done right, I believe high-speed rail can achieve four
    specific and worthy goals--goals that I believe can appeal to--if not
    unite--all Americans--irrespective of political beliefs, economic
    status, or geographic location.
                Four Key Benefits of High-Speed Rail Done Right:
    Number One: Connecting Rural Areas with the Urban Core:
        Starting with the first union station built in 1851 (Columbus Union
    Station in Ohio) and continuing to this day--major railroad stations
    have served to connect America and all Americans. With the advent of
    new technologies that offer both a faster rail system and a safer rail
    system--high-speed rail can--and I believe will--serve to leverage the
    legacy of union stations across America and renew their purpose by
    offering a direct connection to the jobs that are often situated in
    urban cores across the United States. Today, in Los Angeles, our
    economic growth is compromised because access to jobs is sharply
    constrained--not because individuals do not have the skill sets needed
    for a job--not because they lack the education. No, in many instances
    individuals simply cannot get to a job location within a reasonable
    amount of time. And while COVID-19 has certainly changed where people
    work for now--I think it is reasonable to assume that many offices will
    be welcoming their employees back in the near future and that the issue
    of being able to get to the urban core for jobs is not a matter that is
    all together in our rearview mirrors. This is where I believe high-
    speed rail and especially its ability to deliver hundreds of thousands
    of people to urban cores--like Los Angeles--is vital to America's
    future economic growth.
    Number Two: Renewing the American Dream in the Form of Affordable/
            Equitable Housing:
        I am proud to share that LA Metro is a national leader in growing
    our transit system alongside Transit Oriented Communities. In recent
    years, scarce housing and limited transportation options has put the
    squeeze on working Americans resulting in rising housing costs and
    longer and longer commutes. The Center for Neighborhood Technology's
    nationwide Housing and Transportation Affordability index indicates
    that Angelenos spend over 50% of their income on housing and
    transportation expenses.
        A study by the McKinsey Global Institute made three major findings:
        One, Los Angeles residents pay nearly half of their income to rent,
    on average.
        Two, housing costs depress Los Angeles County's GDP by nearly 5%,
    which is over $30 billion per year.
        Three, Los Angeles County would need to build housing 4.5 times
    faster than current rates to meet its current Regional Housing Needs
    Assessment requirements.
        The good news is that through passage of Measure M in 2016, Metro
    is building more mobility enhancing projects. The second solution, in
    addition to providing more mobility--Metro is also building housing
    around this growing system. To date, we have built more than 2,100
    housing units on Metro-owned land--34% of which are affordable housing
    units and we have another 3,200 units of housing under negotiation with
    developers. Looking forward, we are poised in the years to come to
    deliver over 10,000 new housing units--many of them affordable units--
    around our expanding transit system.
        What this tells me is that if we have a high-speed rail system--for
    example the High Desert Corridor intercity rail project in northern Los
    Angeles County that can connect Apple Valley, unincorporated Los
    Angeles County and Palmdale with our urban core and beyond--it would
    offer a chance for the American Dream to be in reach--again--for a new
    generation of Americans. A high-speed rail project along the High
    Desert Rail Corridor would dramatically reduce commute times by
    connecting some of the fastest growing residential, commercial and
    industrial areas in Southern California, such as the cities of
    Palmdale, Lancaster, Adelanto, Victorville and the Town of Apple Valley
    and offer a potential future linkage to Las Vegas via the planned
    Brightline West high-speed rail project. In addition, the High Desert
    Rail Corridor would also connect with the California High-Speed Rail
    system--connecting Los Angeles to the Central Valley and the San
    Francisco/Bay Area.
        In Los Angeles County, the median home price is approximately
    $715,000 and with housing costs so much more reasonable outside of Los
    Angeles--it is a matter of equity that we offer a chance for families
    and individuals to be able to afford a home outside the urban core and
    be able to enjoy a quality of life where half their income is not spent
    on housing and transportation costs. And I should add, according to the
    State of California's Office of Business and Economic Development, much
    of the area where the High Desert Rail Corridor would run has been
    designated as a high poverty area--making the economic development that
    will result from this project all the more important. High-speed rail
    can serve to improve housing issues facing American families--if done
    right.
    Number Three: Restoring America's Leadership in Building Rolling Stock:
        Almost two years ago to this day, on May 16, 2019, I testified
    before the full committee of the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure--at the invitation of Chairman DeFazio to discuss
    Metro's goal of establishing a rolling stock industrial park in Los
    Angeles County or what I have referred to as a Center for
    Transportation Excellence.
        At the time I noted that--and I quote from my testimony--``for
    reasons that are both very complex and very simple--there are no
    American manufacturers of mass transit railcars.''
        This status quo--whether for light rail, heavy rail or high-speed
    rail--of only being assembled in America--not really made in America--
    is totally unacceptable.
        I view congressional consideration of funding high-speed rail as a
    perfect opportunity to restore America's role in building--from the
    ground up--the new rail cars--including locomotives--that will be
    needed once the track is laid down for new high-speed rail routes.
        For Metro--we are prepared to move on our Center for Transportation
    Excellence--having worked with the City of Los Angeles and County of
    Los Angeles to identify an area that could host a vast complex where
    manufacturers and suppliers can work together--using American labor--to
    build the machines that will deliver 21st century mobility to our
    citizens.
    Number Four--A Safer Way To Travel:
        If designed and engineered properly--high-speed rail offers a
    welcome opportunity to move hundreds of thousands of people across
    America--daily--in one of the safest modes of travel.
        According to the Central Japan Railway Company, their bullet train
    in over five decades of operation--having carried over 10 billion
    passengers, has had no passenger fatalities due to train accidents--
    such as derailments or collisions.
        If done right in America--why can't we achieve an identical safety
    record and in effect do the same here across our great land--as they
    have done in Japan? After all--all of us have families--and who amongst
    us do not want to create a safer way for our families to travel--
    whether that travel is on a daily basis or not.
        I believe a high-speed rail route along the High Desert Corridor--
    which would connect Los Angeles with Apple Valley and Las Vegas holds
    the promise to offer a remarkably safe travel alternative in a corridor
    that today sees approximately 56 million annual trips--by air and
    automobile. In fact, according to a report prepared for the High Desert
    Corridor Joint Powers Authority, it is estimated that a rail connection
    between the Apple Valley and Los Angeles would start at a ridership
    level of 10.8 million annually. Moving this number of people safely and
    swiftly is--as I see it--sound public policy and a solid investment of
    Federal dollars.
                                  Conclusion:
        The final point I would like to make is this--if high-speed rail is
    done right--I believe this Congress can smartly use Hamiltonian means
    to achieve Jeffersonian ends. That is, we can use the power of the
    Federal Government to adequately finance these great public works
    projects--while allowing local, county and statewide officials to
    ensure these projects and the manner in which they are built--serve the
    greatest public good. Clearly, those who favor a strong central
    government--will appreciate this Congress and the President pressing
    forward on high-speed rail. However, I think it is also worthwhile to
    consider the equal opportunity for individuals that high-speed rail can
    provide--by giving our citizens a level playing field when it comes to
    the ability--I might even say the freedom--to work and live in a place
    of their choosing.
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee Chair Payne
    and Subcommittee Ranking Member Crawford and honorable Members of this
    Committee--on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
    Transportation Authority--I want to thank you for giving us this
    opportunity to discuss our views on the timely and important subject
    raised by this hearing.
        I look forward to seeing rail--in all its forms--continue to
    provide more mobility to millions of Americans and enhance commerce
    across America in the years ahead. With leadership from Congress--I am
    confident that the ceremony marked on Promontory Point in Utah will be
    replicated again and again across America--as we capture the power of
    rail to transform our great nation for the better.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Washington, for your testimony.
        We will now hear from Ms. Eckert. You have 5 minutes. You
    are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.
        Ms. Eckert. Thank you. Chairman Payne, Ranking Member
    Crawford, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
    me to today's legislative hearing. My name is Danielle Eckert,
    and I am a representative of the International Brotherhood of
    Electrical Workers. Our president, Lonnie Stephenson, has asked
    me to speak on behalf of the IBEW today.
        I came to my position through my service as a railroad
    electrician where I lived and worked in a community put on the
    map and developed around the railroad industry. The IBEW has
    775,000 members across various sectors. Our members work in
    construction, building high-speed rail systems, and on various
    railroads throughout the U.S., building, maintaining, and
    installing infrastructure and equipment for our Nation's rail
    network.
        We are currently onsite at the California high-speed rail
    project, and one of our signatory contractors will be working
    with Texas Central and their high-speed rail line. We support
    robust investments in transportation modes including
    electrified high-speed rail.
        We supported efforts in last year's H.R. 2 that would
    provide new passenger rail improvement grants and historic
    funding levels for Amtrak, and most recently the $80 billion
    investment for rail in President Biden's American Jobs Plan. We
    firmly believe the expansion of high-speed rail is an answer to
    addressing several hard questions Americans face.
        High-speed rail can offer a cleaner alternative in the
    pursuit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It could provide
    access to opportunities and vital services for those in rural
    America who have suffered from de-industrialization.
        Congress must ensure that we continue to create good jobs
    in this industry. This can be achieved by upholding hard-fought
    labor protections that have been in place for almost a century
    by designating providers as rail carriers with a workforce
    covered under railroad labor laws.
        Congress must ensure that contractors will compete for work
    based on who can best train, equip, and manage a construction
    crew, by requiring Davis-Bacon prevailing wages, upholding Buy
    America's standards, establishing strong regulatory regimes and
    safety cultures surrounding new operations and technology, and
    fostering innovative strategies to deliver economic benefits to
    local communities.
        These kinds of standards are proven strategies to provide
    America's workforce with a better way of life. Despite wage
    stagnation, railroad workers have sustained their middle-class
    wages, healthcare benefits, and a dignified retirement. These
    are benefits that my family and I have enjoyed.
        My own hometown has suffered from the loss of industry
    similar to many communities throughout America. Unionization
    peaked in the State in 1989 and reached its lowest point in
    history in 2019.
        Today the median household income in my hometown is
    $40,000, and the poverty rate is 23 percent. After working for
    years to get an advanced degree, I made a career change to
    pursue a future as a railroader. I knew when I got the job the
    railroad was my home.
        Even with a formal education as well as technical military
    training as an Army reservist, being a railroad electrician was
    never easy. There were times that I did come home and tell my
    husband I didn't think I was smart enough to make it through my
    apprenticeship, but my mentors, my brothers and sisters made
    sure that I did.
        Despite those challenges, being able to pay for my
    daughter's karate classes and afford our groceries and utility
    bills while working one steady job was worth all of it. The
    track was laid by generations before me: wages, benefits, and
    safer working conditions thanks to the high union density and
    the rich history of the union workforce's efforts for fair
    treatment and collective bargaining.
        We should honor the dignity of work by ensuring that all
    current and future railroaders have these fundamental
    protections. Current construction labor standards, Buy America,
    and Davis-Bacon ensure that materials used are produced in the
    United States and that wages and benefits are determined by
    matching workers in that area.
        This coverage is critical in growing high-quality jobs in
    the cities and towns where the project is built. The benefits
    of these labor protections are included in the agreement
    between the State Building and Construction Trade Council of
    California and the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
        This ensured that the jobs created went to workers living
    in disadvantaged areas. Those workers are receiving the highest
    level of apprenticeship training, an entry point to careers
    that expand beyond a single project.
        Focusing just on California, agreements like this, both
    private and public sector, support an industry-funded labor-
    management apprenticeship system. And 92 percent of all
    construction apprentices participate in it.
        The programs are extremely diverse. In fact, 96 percent of
    women are in union apprenticeship programs. Seventy-two percent
    of all union apprentices are people of color. And one in five
    have exited the foster care system, are emancipated youth, or
    were previously incarcerated. Registered apprenticeships give
    transformative opportunities to communities that need them the
    most.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and
    the IBEW looks forward to working with the committee to ensure
    that labor standards are set to uplift and level the playing
    field and to make a better opportunity for all America. I look
    forward to answering any questions.
        [Ms. Eckert's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Danielle Eckert, International Representative,
        Political and Legislative Affairs, International Brotherhood of
                               Electrical Workers
        Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford and Members of the
    Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee thank you
    for inviting me to today's legislative hearing.
                                   Background
        My name is Danielle Eckert, and I am an International
    Representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
    Political/Legislative Department. Our International President, Lonnie
    Stephenson, has asked me to speak on behalf of the IBEW. I became an
    International Representative through my service at a class I freight
    carrier as an IBEW railroad electrician. I lived and worked in a
    community put on the map and developed around the railroad industry.
        With 775,000 active members and retirees across various sectors,
    The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)--represents
    nearly 400,000 members who work in construction or are employed by
    railroads. These members construct, build, maintain or install
    infrastructure and railroad equipment for our nation's rail
    transportation network.
        The IBEW supports robust investments in maintaining, modernizing,
    and diversifying transportation modes available for use, including
    electrified high-speed rail. In particular, we strongly support efforts
    the Committee took in last year's version of H.R. 2, the Moving Forward
    Act, that would provide $19 billion in new Passenger Rail Improvement,
    Modernization and Expansion (PRIME) grants, and historic funding levels
    for Amtrak that would allow it to embark on ambitious capital projects
    both on and off the Northeast Corridor. We also applaud the inclusion
    of $80 billion for rail projects in President Biden's American Jobs
    Plan, which would usher in a new dawn of rail modernization.
        The IBEW firmly believes the expansion of high-speed rail is an
    answer to addressing several of the hard questions Americans currently
    face. The reality is that there are constraints that limit what our
    current transportation options can provide, and we need to diversify
    the modes Americans use. High-speed rail can offer a cleaner
    alternative in the pursuit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It can
    provide access to opportunities and vital services for those in rural
    America who have suffered from deindustrialization and underinvestment.
    Members of the IBEW have been at the forefront of addressing these
    challenges. IBEW construction members are currently on-site at the
    California high-speed rail project. IBEW railroad members have been
    maintaining rail systems throughout the U.S. since before the first
    World War.
        The federal government's role in achieving significant advancements
    in the buildout of infrastructure we rely on is undeniable. Even at the
    early onset of railroad expansion, building a rail system that would
    span the United States required federal support through the Pacific
    Railway Act.\1\ The federal government is still instrumental in
    facilitating the adoption of bold transportation projects. Although, we
    are falling behind today, primarily due to the lack of predictable and
    sustained federal investment, causing us to rely on rail infrastructure
    built decades or even a century ago. For far too long, the answer to
    addressing the needs of our rail infrastructure has been to repair just
    enough of what we need in order to just get by. Globally, the high-
    speed rail industry is a mature one. In fact, 32,612 miles (52,484 km)
    of track designated as high-speed is currently in use throughout the
    world. The United States ranks 9th with only 456 miles (735 km) of
    track.\2\ The U.S. is 55 years behind our biggest global competitors
    when it comes to the development of high-speed rail.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=32
        \2\ https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/
    20200227_high_speed_lines_in_the_world.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Highway and road traffic congestion is a severe issue in many of
    the cities where the alternative of high-speed rail has been adopted or
    explored. Even with the early embracement of high-speed rail, the
    surrounding areas can still suffer from lack of useable infrastructure,
    high-speed rail along the Northeast Corridor operates in one of the
    most congested rail territories on earth. Systems rely on
    infrastructure well past its prime, and that has reached the limits of
    its capacity many years ago. Despite these challenges, 260 million
    passenger trips are made on the Northeast Corridor yearly with the
    expectation that this demand will only rise.\3\ Without expanded
    capacity, the only alternative for commuters will be an already crowded
    stretch of highway to get to work.\4,\ \5\ This solution would only add
    to the greenhouse gas emissions released by the transportation sector,
    which is already the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
    The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of total emissions.
    Fifty-nine percent of which is due to light-duty vehicles.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://nec.amtrak.com/about-the-nec/
        \4\ http://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2018/04/NEC-American-
    Economy-Final.pdf
        \5\ https://www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture/about/
        \6\ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-
    greenhouse-gas-emissions
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, the development of high-speed rail brings the promise of
    job creation and economic growth. This includes both good-paying
    middle-class jobs directly tied to the railroad, including
    constructing, operating, and maintaining networks as discussed below,
    but also in the communities that benefit from greater connectivity.
    Expanded high-speed rail would provide a viable third mode of
    transportation for many Americans living in outlying and rural
    communities. Regions that continue to suffer from the consequences of
    deindustrialization would have meaningful access to urban centers. That
    means access to jobs that can pay higher wages and the ability to be
    treated by specialized healthcare professionals. It is for this reason
    that the American Public Transit Association reports that every $1
    invested in high-speed rail will generate $4 in economic impacts, and
    every billion dollars invested will create 24,000 skilled jobs.\7\ With
    measurable benefits like relieving congestion in densely populated
    areas, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
    sector, providing access and economic opportunity, it is hard to
    understand why we are so far behind and why we would be willing to fall
    even further behind.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/high-speed-
    passenger-rail/benefits-of-
    high-speed-rail-for-the-united-states/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Labor Principles for High-Speed Rail
        To fully unlock the economic promise of high-speed rail, Congress
    and the executive branch must ensure that investments in high-speed
    rail continue to create good jobs and support local communities. While
    the future of high-speed rail and other new entrants like Hyperloop and
    Maglev are exciting, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the
    standards and protections that have worked so well for so long. This
    includes:
          Avoiding the circumvention of hard-fought labor
    protections that have been in place for almost a century by stopping
    the intentional carving out of railway labor laws;
          Ensuring that contractors must compete for work based on
    who can best train, best equip, and best manage a construction crew and
    by continuing to require Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on projects;
          Spurring domestic industry in the United States by
    enforcing Buy America conditions on the procurement of materials;
          Establishing strong regulatory regimes and safety
    cultures surrounding new operations and technologies;
          Fostering innovative strategies to deliver economic
    benefits to local communities and economically disadvantaged
    workforces.
                                 IBEW Railroad
        Despite wage stagnation in the United States, railroad workers
    covered under the Railway Labor Act have sustained their middle-class
    wages, healthcare benefits, and dignified retirement. These are
    benefits that my family and I have enjoyed. My own hometown has
    suffered from the loss of industry. The rate of union workers in my
    state peaked in 1989 and was at its lowest point in history in 2019.\8\
    The median household income in my hometown is $40,000 and the poverty
    rate is 23 percent. Unexpectedly, after working for years to get an
    advanced degree, I knew when I got the job, the railroad was my home.
    Even with all the formal education, military occupational specialties
    in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials and in
    small arms repair, being a railroad locomotive electrician was never
    easy. There were times that I came home and told my husband that I
    didn't think I was smart enough to get through my apprenticeship, but
    my mentors, my brothers and sisters, made sure that I did. Despite
    those challenges, being able to provide karate classes for my daughter,
    never having to worry if we could afford our groceries that week, that
    a utility was going to be shut off or that I would have to piece
    together a million different ``entry level'' jobs that would never add
    up to a career, it was worth all of it. The track was laid by
    generations before me: wages, benefits, and safer working conditions
    thanks to high union density and the rich history of the union
    workforce's efforts for fair treatment and the collective bargaining
    agreements negotiated by railroad workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/news-release/
    unionmembership_pennsylvania.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although we have achieved remarkable progress in the industry's
    economic and safety conditions in the last 100 years, there is still
    considerable work to be done--and ample opportunity for ill-considered
    policy to take us backward.
        First, it is essential that entities providing high-speed rail and
    materially similar operations are considered rail carriers under the
    existing statute.\9\ This ensures these entities are covered under the
    Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement Act, and Railroad Unemployment
    Insurance Act. This coverage is critical to maintaining high-quality
    jobs in the industry, and entities wishing to provide service should
    not be permitted to skirt these requirements due to novel aspects of
    new technologies and operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ 49 U.S.C. Section 10102
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wages
        Through collective bargaining agreements, union railroad
    electricians like myself have earned the right to middle-class wages,
    healthcare benefits, and a voice in adopting work rules. High-speed
    rail, when done right, can create good union jobs with good wages.
    Recent comparative studies of wage stagnation in the United States have
    found that unionized workers earn an average of 11.2 percent more in
    wages than nonunion peers.\10\ Although it is challenging to identify a
    peer group when it comes to the performance of traditional railroad
    work, to offer a comparison, we can use the wages rates to a similar
    workforce in the railroad industry, workers performing the same or
    similar tasks but not covered under rail labor laws. The IBEW is losing
    members due to an increasing trend to transfer work historically
    performed by railroaders to outside contractors, resulting in a
    suppression of wages in the industry. This reality is demonstrated by
    comparing the wages of workers who perform the duties of installation
    maintenance and repair occupations under the designation of ``rail
    transportation,'' a highly unionized force with those falling under the
    definition of ``support activities for rail transportation.'' \11,\
    \12\ The ``rail transportation workforce'' earns on average $16,900
    more a year than the latter. In economically depressed areas, an extra
    $16,900 means having money for mortgage payments, groceries, healthcare
    expenses, and equipment for your kids' participation in sports,
    especially if the only jobs left are railroad jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.epi.org/publication/why-unions-are-good-for-
    workers-especially-in-a-crisis-like-
    covid-19-12-policies-that-would-boost-worker-rights-safety-and-wages/
        \11\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_482000.htm#00-0000
        \12\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_488200.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Railroad Retirement
        IBEW railroad workers are covered under the Railroad Retirement Act
    and draw their retirement benefits from an independent agency created
    in the 1930s. The design of this system was to ensure that the railroad
    workforce could retire with dignity, and benefits are funded solely
    through taxes that the workers and the employers of those workers pay
    into the system.\13\ By continuing to define high-speed rail operators
    as rail carriers, employees will continue to have access to the
    occupational benefits Congress intended.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://rrb.gov/OurAgency/
    AgencyOverview#::text=Financing%20%2D%2D%20Payroll
    %20taxes%20paid,on%20a%20two%2Dtier%20basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Safety
        Unionized rail labor has played a fundamental role in adopting
    safety practices and training standards in the industry and has been
    central in raising awareness of ongoing safety issues. Rail labor has
    also long advocated before Congress, and the executive branch on rail
    safety issues, including on the Federal Railroad Administration's
    Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) as critical stakeholders in
    the drafting of new regulatory standards. Finally, our organizations
    are integral in educating members of their rights to access statutory
    safeguards from dangerous practices and discrimination by their
    employers.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ http://www.ibew.org/articles/14ElectricalWorker/EW1408/
    RailWorkerRights.0814.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We will continue to play an essential role in the safe deployment
    of new operations and networks. We recognize that these networks may
    require new regulatory approaches, such as the Rule of Particular
    Applicability granted to Texas Central Railroad.\15\ However, the
    answer to new technologies cannot be an abdication of federal safety
    oversight. Put another way, simply because a new operation does not
    fall within the confines of existing regulation does not mean that it
    should remain unregulated. Entities who share characteristics with more
    than one mode of transportation, like rail and transit, cannot use this
    ambiguity to evade the regulatory oversight of either modal agency.
    More than anyone, labor knows that failures to regulate safety and fair
    working conditions result in accidents, injuries, and even deaths and
    open the door to abuses of employees. We firmly reject the argument
    that the only way to foster innovation and growth is a dangerous hands-
    off approach and call on the members of this Committee to be in
    opposition to any such efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/03/2020-
    20388/texas-central
    -railroad-high-speed-rail-safety-
    standards#::text=This%20final%20rule%20of%20particular,
    speed%20rail%20(HSR)%20system.&text=The%20TCRR%20HSR%20system%20is,%2
    Fh%20(205%20mph).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               IBEW Construction
        The IBEW represents both members covered under the Railway Labor
    Act and those who work with signatory contractors who build high-speed
    rail systems.
        For construction, it is essential that entities providing high-
    speed rail service and benefitting from grants provided under Chapter
    229 are subject to existing grant conditions, including Buy America and
    prevailing wages.\16,\ \17\ In turn, this ensures that materials used
    are produced in the United States and that wages and benefits are paid
    to the various job classifications of construction workers in the
    community without regard to union membership--instead of who provides
    the cheapest labor. This coverage is critical in maintaining high-
    quality jobs in the industry and prevents a race to the bottom in wages
    that do nothing to support the local community's economy or provide its
    residents with careers that last a lifetime.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ 49 U.S.C. Section 22905.
        \17\ 49 U.S.C. Section 24312.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, when data points are quantified to demonstrate the
    value of a project, the last one considered is providing access to the
    economic benefits of the people living there. Access can mean providing
    an affordable option to commute to growing economic centers and vital
    healthcare hubs. Having access also means providing a means to learning
    a skilled trade and a pathway to the middle class, achieved through
    participation in registered apprenticeship programs.
        The California high-speed rail project has made opportunity a
    reality for the workers currently constructing the line. The impact of
    the success of California high-speed rail project on the Central Valley
    community is not solely due to the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
    standards applied federal grant dollars. We can make high-speed rail
    work by ensuring that the benefits from the investment reach members in
    the community where the project is built. The State Building and
    Construction Trade Council of California partnered with construction
    contractors and the California High-Speed Rail Authority to reach a
    community benefits agreement, which ensured that the jobs created on
    the project went to disadvantaged areas. The community benefits
    agreement has a targeted hiring program requiring that workers from
    economically disadvantaged areas, earn between $32,000 to $40,000
    annually, with a minimum of 10 percent being comprised of workers
    facing traditional barriers to employment.\18\ The agreement has opened
    opportunities to participate in high-standard registered apprenticeship
    programs, proper worksite safety standards, fair compensation,
    benefits, and an entry point on the road to the middle-class through
    high-skill careers that expand beyond a single project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/general-info/
    community-benefits-agreement/
    #::text=The%20Community%20Benefits%20Agreement%20(CBA,live%20in%20econo
    mically
    %2Ddisadvantaged%20areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To date, more than 5,500 construction workers have been dispatched
    to the California high-speed rail site, with more than 35 construction
    sites active today.\19\ Almost 73 percent of the workers dispatched to
    the project live in the Central Valley and more than 400 are
    disadvantaged workers.\20,\ \21\ Projects like California high-speed
    rail have shown proven success in removing the barriers that many
    Americans face reaching the middle class.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ https://hsr.ca.gov/2021/03/16/video-release-high-speed-rail-
    releases-march-2021-construction-updat/
        \20\ https://www.buildhsr.com/press_center/news_releases/
    news_release_highspeed_rail_
    95532.aspx
        \21\ https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/statewide/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2017, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of
    California reported that 92 percent of all construction apprentices in
    California participated in a union/joint labor-management
    apprenticeship program. Union programs produced 95 percent of all
    graduates in the state, with 68 percent of the participants coming from
    communities of color, and 96 percent of all women in state-approved
    apprenticeship training were in union programs.\22\ These numbers have
    only grown since then. Currently, 71 percent of apprentices
    participating in union programs are people of color, and one-in-five
    apprentices have exited the foster care system, are emancipated youth,
    or were previously incarcerated. In a six-year time frame, the number
    of union apprenticeships has grown in the state from 40,000
    participants to almost 70,000. Registered apprenticeships give
    transformative opportunities to communities most in need of first and
    second chances.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ https://cabuildingtrades.org/the-facts-about-apprenticeship-
    programs-in-california/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moreover, due to standards placed on the materials purchased and
    the California High-Speed Rail Authority's small business policy, more
    than 613 certified small businesses have contributed to the work on the
    project, 195 are owned by economically disadvantaged individuals, and
    68 are owned by a disabled veterans.\23,\ \24\ The California high-
    speed rail project has invested $195 million in companies in the U.S.
    but headquartered outside of the state.\25\ In compliance with the Buy
    America standards, the girders for the high-speed rail bridges were
    manufactured in California and made from steel produced in the U.S. and
    required materials from all over the country. The concrete comes from
    the state as well.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ https://hsr.ca.gov/2021/01/29/news-release-first-graduating-
    class-of-central-valley-training-
    center-in-selma-ready-to-work-on-high-speed-rail/
        \24\ https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/small-business-
    program/
        \25\ https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
    National_Impact_Map.pdf
        \26\ https://www.buildhsr.com/hsrinvestment/pdf/
    California_Economy_2017.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Closing
        Throughout history, the federal government has been an essential
    partner in supporting the development of bold solutions to our
    transportation problems. New projects must adhere to the appropriate
    safety standards and worker protections set for the rest of the
    industry regardless of federal support. When we use federal resources
    to deliver these projects, they must include the proper labor standards
    to create the good jobs we desperately need.
        On behalf of the IBEW, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to
    testify this morning and take steps to resolve our nation's
    transportation needs. We look forward to working with the Committee to
    ensure that labor standards are set to uplift and level the playing
    field for better opportunities for all Americans.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Ms. Eckert.
        We will now turn to Mr. Duhon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duhon. I would like to thank Chairman Payne, Ranking
    Member Crawford, Chairman DeFazio, and the members of the
    committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents
    today. My name is Judge Trey Duhon, and I serve as county judge
    for Waller County, Texas. Neighboring Houston, we are both
    suburban and rural and a minority-majority county which creates
    a diverse and unique set of impacts on our citizens related to
    growth and infrastructure.
        I am here today to provide a real-world perspective on the
    Texas high-speed rail project promoted by Texas Central
    Railway. I am not opposed to high-speed rail, but if you
    believe high-speed rail can provide the American people with a
    cheaper and greener method of mass transit, please listen to me
    that Texas high-speed rail project does none of those.
        Since 2014, Texas Central has promised landowners and
    elected officials that no tax dollars will be needed for its
    private project; that it would only cost around $10 billion to
    construct; and it would be operational by 2021. Texas knew
    better so it passed a law in 2017 prohibiting the use of State
    funds for private high-speed rail which is still in effect
    today.
        Then just last year, Texas Central's chairman, Drayton
    McLane, admitted in a letter to a Texas State senator that the
    project had turned into a $30 billion project, meaning costs
    have tripled without even putting a shovel in the ground. He
    also admitted that the project would not be privately financed,
    sharing that they were going after stimulus money to fund the
    project.
        Why the sudden change? Because over the past 7 years, Texas
    Central has secured only $450 million to our knowledge in
    private financing which includes a $300 million loan from the
    Bank of Japan, just 1.5 percent of the project's $30 billion
    current price tag.
        Even if Texas Central had $30 billion, they do not have
    authority under Texas eminent domain law to acquire the 240
    miles of private property along the proposed route, an issue
    that is still being litigated before the Texas Supreme Court.
        In addition, when the Surface Transportation Board took
    jurisdiction over the project 10 months ago, it made clear that
    Texas Central cannot begin any construction or operation unless
    and until it submits a full application for a construction
    permit, which TCR has to file. Assuming it ever does, this hard
    [inaudible] application process will take years to complete.
        In the final days of the Trump administration, the Federal
    Railroad Administration for the first time in its history
    issued a Rule of Particular Applicability creating a carve-out
    for the Japanese high-speed rail technology TCR wants to use
    for the project, but again the FRA said this does not grant
    authorization to construct or operate the project either. To
    put it bluntly, Texas Central is in no better position to build
    the project today than it was before the STB and the FRA
    rulings.
        Then there is the issue of feasibility. As I speak here
    today, not one Government agency has evaluated whether the
    project is economically viable. In fact, during the EIS
    process, the FRA removed economic viability from the project's
    purpose altogether and proceeded with the study feasibility
    absent.
        What is worse, Texas Central has overstated ridership while
    underestimating cost, a recipe for disaster. As one expert put
    it, quote, ``Based on our experience and analysis, we are
    concerned that Texas Central's project will fail so
    spectacularly that privately financed U.S. high-speed rail
    lines may never be given a second chance.''
        So I am urging you to pursue it with extreme caution.
    Before you decide to give billions of taxpayer dollars to build
    this private project, consider why you should simply take this
    company's word that construction is around the corner and the
    project is financially feasible when history has proven that
    their words mean nothing.
        What is the benefit? The project is not interoperable. It
    is totally incompatible with and disconnected from any other
    existing and future rail lines, and the exclusivity doesn't end
    with its tracks. Ticket prices will not be like the Metro. It
    will be for the business class. If the goal is to build
    connected rail systems accessible to all travelers to
    strengthen the national rail network, this project is not the
    answer.
        If it is built, the project will hit rural and minority
    communities along the proposed route--like mine--the hardest,
    including at the other end of the proposed route in South
    Dallas where entire low-income and minority neighborhoods will
    be displaced because only one route was ever considered. The
    Department of Transportation recently halted expansion of I-10
    and I-45 near downtown Houston due to similar concerns.
        In closing, I urge this Congress to invest our precious and
    limited tax dollars in infrastructure projects that would
    benefit all Americans. Have we not learned anything from the
    taxpayer-backed disaster in California? Texas Central promised
    its project was privately financed, and everything they have
    done to date, including the EIS, was based on that.
        So we say let it live or die in the free market. Invest our
    tax dollars in more equitable transportation solutions. We
    should not have to pay for another train to nowhere while
    having our communities destroyed by the very tax dollars that
    we work hard to contribute. Thank you again for the opportunity
    to speak on behalf of the people of Waller County.
        [Mr. Duhon's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon III, Judge, Waller
                                 County, Texas
        I'd like to thank Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Crawford for
    allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents today. My name is
    Judge Trey Duhon and I serve as the County Judge for Waller County,
    Texas. Neighboring Houston, we are both suburban and rural and a
    minority majority county, which creates a diverse and unique set of
    impacts on our citizens related to growth and infrastructure.
        I'm here to provide a real-world perspective on the Texas HSR
    project promoted by Texas Central Railway. I'm not necessarily opposed
    to HSR in general, but if you believe that HSR can provide the American
    people with a cheaper, greener way to move around, please listen to me
    that the Texas HSR project does none of those.
        Since 2014, Texas Central has promised landowners and elected
    officials that no tax dollars would be needed for its private project;
    that it would only cost around $10B to construct; and it would be
    operational by 2021. Texas knew better, so it passed a law in 2017
    prohibiting the use of State funds for private HSR, which is still in
    effect today.
        Then, just last year, Texas Central's Chairman, Drayton McLane,
    admitted in a letter to a Texas State Senator that ``the project has
    turned into a $30B project,'' meaning costs have already tripled
    without even putting a shovel in the ground yet . . .
        He also admitted the project would not be privately financed,
    sharing that they were going after stimulus money to fund the project.
        Why this sudden change? Because over the past 7 years, Texas
    Central has secured only $450 million in private financing, which
    includes a $300 million loan from the Bank of Japan . . . just 1.5% of
    the project's $30B+ current price tag.
        Even if Texas Central had $30B, they do not have authority under
    Texas eminent domain law to acquire the 240 miles of private property
    along the proposed route, an issue still being litigated before the
    Texas Supreme Court.
        In addition, when the Surface Transportation Board took
    jurisdiction over the project 10 months ago, it made clear that Texas
    Central cannot begin any construction or operation unless and until it
    submits a full application for a construction permit, which TCR has yet
    to file. Assuming it ever does, this ``hard look'' full application
    process will take years to complete.
        In the final days of the Trump administration, the Federal Railroad
    Administration, for the first time in its history, issued a ``Rule of
    Particular Applicability,'' creating a carve out for the Japanese HSR
    technology TCR wants to use for the project. But, again, FRA said this
    does not grant authorization to construct or operate the project
    either. To put it bluntly, Texas Central is in no better position to
    build the project today than it was before the STB and the FRA rulings.
        Then there is the issue of feasibility. As I speak here today, not
    one government agency has evaluated whether the project is economically
    viable. In fact, during the EIS process, FRA removed economic viability
    from the project's purpose altogether and proceeded with the study,
    feasibility absent.
        What's worse, Texas Central has overstated ridership while
    underestimating costs--a recipe for disaster. As one expert put it,
    ``based on our experience and analysis, we are concerned that Texas
    Central's project will fail so spectacularly that privately financed
    U.S. high-speed rail lines may never be given a second chance.''
        So I am urging you to proceed with extreme caution. Before you
    decide to give billions of taxpayer dollars to build this ``private''
    project, consider why you should simply take this company's word that
    construction is around the corner and that the project is financially
    feasible, when history has already proven their word means nothing.
        What is the benefit? The project is not ``interoperable.'' It is
    totally incompatible with, and disconnected from, any other existing
    and future rail lines. And the exclusivity doesn't end with its tracks.
    Ticket prices will not be like the Metro . . . it'll be for the
    business class. So if the goal is to build connected rail systems
    accessible to all travelers, to strengthen the national rail network,
    this project is not the answer.
        If it is built, the project will hit rural and minority communities
    along the proposed route, like mine, the hardest . . . including, at
    the other end of the proposed route in South Dallas, where entire low-
    income and minority neighborhoods would be displaced because only one
    route was ever considered. The DOT recently halted expansion of
    Interstate 10 & 45 near downtown Houston due to similar concerns.
        (In closing) I urge this Congress to invest our precious and
    limited tax dollars in infrastructure projects that would benefit all
    Americans. Have we not learned anything from the taxpayer-backed
    disaster in California? Texas Central promised its project was
    privately financed and everything they have done to date, including the
    EIS, was based on that. So we say let it live or die in the free
    market. Invest our tax dollars in more equitable transportation
    solutions. We should not have to pay for another train to nowhere while
    having communities destroyed by the very tax dollars they worked hard
    to contribute.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
    people of Waller County.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir.
        Now we will have Mr. Kunz for 5 minutes.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Kunz, can you hear us?
        You are muted, sir.
        Mr. Kunz. Am I on now?
        Mr. Payne. Yes.
        Mr. Kunz. Thank you, sir.
        I would like to thank Chairman Payne, Chairman DeFazio,
    Ranking Member Crawford, and the other members of the
    subcommittee for holding this important hearing today.
        America is one of the last remaining industrialized nations
    that does not have high-speed rail. The rest of the world has
    embraced this technology and for decades has benefitted greatly
    from it. High-speed rail offers an exceptional transport mode
    that can efficiently carry 20,000 people per hour without
    congestion, hassles, or delays. High-speed rail not only adds
    major new capacity to the transportation mix, but also
    alleviates intercity congestion on both highways and airport
    runways.
        High-speed rail can unlock numerous ridership
    opportunities. Essential workers like teachers, police, and
    firemen in the high-priced Silicon Valley could find affordable
    housing options with a short train ride to Merced or Fresno in
    California's Central Valley.
        Residents of Eugene, Oregon, could access jobs in
    Portland's tech sector or booming recreational industry with a
    35-minute commute.
        A Houston salesperson could prepare for an important client
    meeting in Dallas with dedicated Wi-Fi and ample workspace,
    while gliding past the notorious congestion on I-45.
        A college student in Atlanta could make it home for
    Thanksgiving in Charlotte, while picking up grandma along the
    way in Greenville, South Carolina.
        International tourists visiting Disney World in Orlando
    could extend their vacation with a day trip to the gulf beaches
    of the Greater Tampa Bay area.
        High-speed rail will directly create scores of well-paying,
    family-supporting jobs in the construction, operation, and
    maintenance of a modern transportation network.
        This will also spur a new American manufacturing
    renaissance centered on rail development. Envision our vast
    Great Lakes region, with its powerhouse experience in
    manufacturing, being transformed from the rust belt of America
    to the new rail belt of our Nation. High-speed rail decreases
    regional disparities by stitching together economic growth
    capitals with underdeveloped population centers and
    revitalizing neglected urban cores with transit-oriented
    development.
        One tragic legacy of expanding our highway system is the
    demolition of urban neighborhoods that disproportionality
    affects communities of color and low-income residents. High-
    speed rail reverses this trend, reconnecting communities, and
    offers a more equitable access to transportation.
        High-speed rail has an unmatched track record of safety.
    Japan, with the world's first high-speed rail network, has
    carried millions of people over 50 years without a single
    fatality. In comparison, as many as 40,000 Americans are killed
    every year in auto accidents on our highways.
        As an all-electric system, high-speed rail provides a major
    climate solution by decarbonizing a large portion of our
    transportation sector, and thus ensuring a sustainable
    environment for future generations.
        Over 20 nations around the world, including Europe, Asia,
    the Middle East, and North Africa have benefitted from robust
    and consistent levels of Government investment in advanced,
    high-speed rail networks. China has invested over $1 trillion
    in high-speed rail, allowing them to build a world-class,
    22,000-mile network in 14 years. Not taking a pause, China
    plans to construct another 21,000 miles of track over the next
    9 years. Modern infrastructure like this fuels China's
    explosive economic growth, making it challenging for us to
    compete with them in the 21st century.
        On the other side of the globe, the United Kingdom is
    currently doubling their rail network with a $120 billion
    investment. France has invested over $160 billion in
    constructing their system. Spain's 2,000-mile high-speed rail
    network is the largest in Europe, costing more than $175
    billion. These are considerable investments by nations that are
    similar in size to Texas.
        With this in mind, we concur with Secretary Buttigieg's
    recent statement: ``I just don't know why people in other
    countries ought to have better train service or more investment
    in high-speed rail than Americans do.''
        A Nation that has undertaken bold infrastructure projects
    in the past, such as the Erie Canal, transcontinental railroad,
    and Interstate Highway System can surely realize the vision of
    a national high-speed rail network. So we offer these four
    recommendations for making high-speed rail a success in
    America:
        Number one: A national plan of action, which includes
    establishing a new high-speed rail development agency within
    DOT, with the task of advancing project corridors,
    administering funds, expediting permitting, and sharing
    connectivity, and adopting safety standards.
        Two: Immediate and large-targeted investments to fast-track
    the development and construction of the top five projects of
    national importance. Completion of these projects will build
    the momentum and competence to build out a national high-speed
    rail network.
        Three: The establishment of a rail trust fund to ensure
    completion of individual high-speed rail project corridors.
    Dedicated, robust, and consistent funding will not only reduce
    project costs and development timelines but unlock sources of
    private capital with a reliable Federal partner.
        Number four: Adopt best practices, global standards,
    principles, and system governance structures that have been
    proven in half a century of high-speed rail operations around
    the world.
        In summary, we believe one of our Nation's greatest
    opportunities of the 21st century can be realized by this
    committee. We urge you, without delay, to invest substantially
    in high-speed rail and help write America's next great chapter
    for this country.
        Thank you for your time and inviting me to testify today,
    and I welcome questions.
        [Mr. Kunz's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Andy Kunz, President and Chief Executive Officer,
                        U.S. High Speed Rail Association
        I'd like to thank Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, and Ranking
    Member Crawford and the other Members of the Subcommittee for holding
    this important hearing today.
        We have before us a unique opportunity to remake our nation by
    investing in high speed rail--an incredible mode of transport proven to
    deliver multiple benefits across a number of sectors. The rest of the
    world has embraced this technology and for decades has benefitted
    greatly from it. America is one of the last remaining industrialized
    nations that doesn't have high speed rail.
        The benefits are many and include the following:
                            Mobility & Jobs Benefits
        High speed rail offers a new very high-capacity transport mode that
    can efficiently carry 20,000 people per hour without congestion,
    delays, or hassles. High speed rail not only adds major new capacity to
    the transportation mix, but also takes the strain off both highways and
    runways making both of those modes function better as a secondary
    benefit. High speed rail shortens commutes and makes it easy to apply
    for jobs in a much larger region, and for employers to draw from a
    larger geographic area.
        Imagine the benefits to residents of Houston who could get to jobs
    in Dallas in an hour and 15 minutes by high speed rail. This would be a
    game changer. Residents of Detroit could get to jobs and business
    opportunities in Chicago in an hour and a half. Atlanta residents could
    have easy access to Charlotte with 1 hour and 10 minute train rides.
    Residents of Eugene, Oregon could work in Portland's tech sector or its
    booming outdoor gear industry with 35 minute trains between those
    cities.
        High speed rail will also directly create millions of good paying
    permanent jobs across multiple sectors and at every skill level
    building, operating, and maintaining the new high speed rail network.
    This will also spur a whole new American manufacturing industry
    centered on rail development--creating millions of permanent jobs
    including fabrication, steel making, concrete tie production, and the
    many components that make up a modern train.
               Economic Development, Equity, & Affordable Living
        High speed rail stimulates economic development in multiple ways
    and spreads it to cities and regions left behind--connecting them with
    major employment centers and all the opportunities that brings. HSR
    also lowers the cost of both transportation and housing for millions of
    people while providing vast access to miles of entire affordable
    communities. High speed rail can help repair damage done to minority
    communities from the build out of our interstate highway system which
    separated communities. High speed rail ties communities together
    providing affordable, clean transportation.
                                Safety Benefits
        High speed rail is the safest form of transportation possible. The
    longest operating HSR network in Japan has been carrying billions of
    people for 50 years without a single fatality. In comparison, as many
    as 40,000 Americans are killed every year in auto accidents on our
    highways.
                                Climate Solution
        HSR can rapidly decarbonize a large portion of our transportation
    sector--the #1 sectoral cause of climate change. High speed rail is
    electric so can be powered by clean domestic sources of energy,
    including renewables.
                        Global Levels of HSR Investment
        High speed rail is a mature, proven technology currently in
    operation in more than 20 countries including many nations that are far
    smaller than the U.S., with a fraction of our GDP.
        The reason so many nations have advanced high speed rail networks
    is because their governments invested heavily in these new systems as
    sustained investments over several decades.
          The United Kingdom is currently doubling their high speed
    rail network, investing another $120 Billion dollars on High Speed 2
    expanding to the northern cities.
          France has invested well over $160 Billion into the
    construction of their network and is still adding new lines to more
    cities.
          Italy built a new network connecting their nation,
    investing around $75 Billion so far.
          Spain built the largest high speed rail network in Europe
    spanning nearly 2,000 miles--investing more than $175 Billion.
          (Keep in mind each of these nations are similar in size
    to a single U.S. state like Texas, California, or Florida.)
          The largest global investment to date in high speed rail
    is in China. Over the last 14 years, the Chinese government invested
    more than $1 Trillion dollars building a brand-new, 22,000 mile, world-
    class HSR network that is now fully operational, transporting billions
    of people all over their nation. This is more new high speed rail miles
    than the rest of the world combined. On top of that, China has an
    additional 21,000 miles currently under construction to complete their
    full national high speed rail network of 43,000 miles by 2030--only 9
    years from now.

        Of special note, China's economy is on track to be bigger than ours
    by 2028. The only way we'll be able to compete is by having the same
    highly efficient national transportation system underlying our economy.
    As we all know, transportation dictates the entire functioning and cost
    of running a nation. Countries that have a fast, delay-free transport
    system will outcompete others that don't.
                           America Can Have This Too
        We agree with Secretary Buttigieg's recent statement: ``I just
    don't know why people in other countries ought to have better train
    service or more investment in high speed rail than Americans do''.
    There really is no good reason. High speed rail has been built in every
    type geography, climate, and government structure. We can do this!
    Building our national high speed rail network should be as important
    and historic as Eisenhower building the interstate highway system back
    in the 1950s which created the framework for our continued prosperity
    we all enjoy today. It's our responsibility now to do the same level of
    generational investments for future generations coming along behind us.
     4 Recommendations for Making This a Success in America (based on case
                           studies around the world)
    1) National Vision & Plan of Action
        Establish a new High Speed Rail Development Agency within the USDOT
    tasked with the mission to work with states to plan out national
    network, lead projects, standardize the development and construction
    processes, bring down costs and project development timelines, and
    offer one-stop permitting.
    2) Immediate, Large Targeted Investments
        Fast-track all of the top 5 projects by designating them projects
    of national importance, accelerating their development and construction
    to completion, so the public can get relief with a fast new mode of
    transport.
    3) Establishment of Rail Trust Fund
        We need a capital fund to build the new high speed rail network,
    project by project to full build out by 2035. This includes the
    establishment of Project Trust Funds for each of the leading HSR
    projects to draw from through project development and construction
    phases--saving time and development costs.
    4) Enacting Global Standards, Principles, System Governance Structure
        We should use principles of system design and operational standards
    garnered from 50 years of high speed rail development wisdom and
    experience from more than 20 nations.
                                   Conclusion
        The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has the power
    to transform America with 21st century transportation--setting into
    motion a new direction unleashing layers of benefits, solutions, and
    improvements to all our lives, and our future. We urge you to invest
    heavily in high speed rail starting today and help write America's next
    chapter of greatness.
        Thank you for your time and for inviting me to testify today. I'm
    happy to answer any questions you may have.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Kunz, for your testimony.
        We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will
    be recognized for 5 minutes. I will start by recognizing
    myself.
        Mr. Porcari, the current rail system in the United States
    is based on centuries' old methods of transportation. High-
    speed rail can dramatically change the way that Americans
    travel, and it really could open doors to a whole set of
    possibilities for regular travel and commuting that were
    thought not to be possible.
        What would be the benefits of a fully integrated high-speed
    rail network in the United States?
        Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, it is a great question.
        There would be multiple benefits from a fully integrated
    high-speed rail system in the United States, starting with the
    effect on the local economies. History has shown throughout the
    world and in the United States, that as you build higher speed
    rail and build ridership in that virtuous cycle, it has local
    spinoff economic development benefits. Not just in the station
    areas, but for the local economy as well.
        It also can connect major metropolitan regions with less
    populated parts of the country, enabling them to benefit from
    economic development as well.
        Finally, the U.S. manufacturing, U.S. employment, and other
    secondary and tertiary economic benefits are really important
    here as well because we can literally build an industry that
    has good-paying, family-supporting jobs. And as you heard from
    Ms. Eckert, for example, skilled trade opportunities for the
    future.
        So building the economy of the future, I believe, requires
    a diverse and balanced transportation system where high-speed
    rail is an integral component of it and local jurisdictions
    have the ability to build on those plans.
        Mr. Payne. Given the high cost of a network, and the lack
    of immediate identifiable sources of funding, what are your
    thoughts on how to fund high-speed rail? Quickly.
        Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, as I testified, I believe a
    passenger rail trust fund should be our ultimate goal here. And
    without that consistent funding year after year, which is what
    it takes to build a program of projects around the country, we
    simply won't get the national system that we need. Every
    transportation revenue source should be a candidate for that
    passenger rail trust fund.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Mr. Washington, it is good to talk to you again. I had a
    quick conversation with you during the transition time, a call
    that we had. But equity in rail is one of my top priorities as
    chairman of this subcommittee.
        Your testimony states that high-speed rail can connect
    rural areas to urban cores, opening the door for new,
    innovative ways for people to travel, and expanding their
    potential commuting range. High-speed rail has the potential to
    deliver serious benefits to Americans, and we must ensure that
    all Americans stand to benefit from such a network.
        How would we implement high-speed rail so that all
    Americans can equitably benefit from it?
        Mr. Washington. Well thank you, Mr. Chair. And great to
    talk with you again.
        One of the examples that I put in my testimony was high-
    speed rail from rural areas. There is one of the highest
    poverty areas northeast of Los Angeles that is affordable.
    Houses there are $250,000 to $300,000 a year, whereas in Los
    Angeles, they are about $700,000 a year. And so high-speed rail
    can really play a role in bringing folks from those rural areas
    to the urban core. And the ridership for that is about 10
    million people on an annual basis.
        And so I think in terms of equity, and in terms of quality
    of life, and in terms of people being able to fulfill the
    American dream, I think high-speed rail can do that. If you can
    get on a high-speed rail and be from that high-poverty area to
    Los Angeles urban core in 40 minutes, that is a game changer
    for families, and that is an opportunity for them to fulfill
    the American dream.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        And I will yield back.
        And we will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Crawford,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
        I wanted to talk to County Judge Duhon and get some insight
    from you. Judge, if you would, can you talk about, in some
    detail, the ways that the proposed Texas high-speed rail
    project impacts landowners and the environment?
        Mr. Duhon. Thank you, Ranking Member Crawford, for the
    question.
        We have been trying to, for many years now, trying to have
    a very substantive conversation with the Federal Railroad
    Administration regarding a lot of the impacts that this project
    could have on our community in Waller County. The list, it is
    probably too long to really go into detail here, and I have got
    materials in my appendix.
        But for example, if this is built on a berm through Waller
    County, it is going to severely impact drainage and flooding in
    this area of the county. This part of the county has been
    impacted. We have had four FEMA floods in this part of the
    county in the last 4 or 5 years; emergency routes for our
    emergency response, our schoolbus routes.
        We have raised a public safety issue. There is a natural
    gas compressor station that will be just a few hundred feet
    from this high-speed rail line that periodically releases gas
    into the--when the mine becomes over pressurized. And that is
    just a few feet away from a high-speed rail line with an
    overhead electric line.
        And these are just a few of the examples where we have
    tried to sit down with the FRA, numerous times, to have these
    conversations and be treated as equal partners. And we have
    been refused at every step. And that is why we have a very
    serious issue with the process that has been used with Texas
    Central Railway.
        I would encourage anyone, on any project going forward,
    please do not use the same process that has been used in Texas
    Central Railway because our communities are being disregarded.
        Mr. Crawford. I appreciate the insight, Judge, and I have
    one more question for you. [Inaudible) high-speed rail
    projects, do you think it is--would be self-sustaining or would
    it be----
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Crawford, we cannot hear you.
        Mr. Crawford. I was asking the Judge if he thinks that
    there is sufficient demand to warrant this project, or would it
    be self-sustaining, or would it require Government funding to
    support it?
        Mr. Duhon. There is no doubt in my mind this project will
    have to be subsidized. I mean, let's just be honest. There are
    very few high-speed rail lines in the world that run in the
    black, and the two that do are very heavily subsidized.
        And so, you know, we have had an environmental impact
    process that we have gone through for many years with public
    input, but it was all predicated on the fact that this line
    would be privately financed. I think the results of the EIS
    could have been drastically different if they had said, ``This
    is going to use public money.''
        But all that being the case, that is also why the FRA never
    looked at the feasibility of this project. And honestly, there
    has been several independent studies. The Reason Foundation--
    and this is detailed in my appendix--the Reason Foundation took
    a very hard look at the numbers and they found that the
    ridership was substantially overstated. They are saying--you
    know, they are looking at getting 16,000 trips a day between
    Houston and Dallas.
        Right now, flights alone, just the flights are at 2,000 and
    some change, and that is declining. So you would have to get
    everybody off an airplane to get on this train, and then you
    would still have to get 13,000 to 14,000 people out of their
    cars, onto a train. And I am just going to tell you, in Texas,
    that is going to be impossible.
        So this budget will never cash flow. It just--the numbers
    do not work.
        Mr. Crawford. Well Judge, I appreciate your insight.
        And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back.
        We now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    DeFazio, for 5 minutes.
        [Pause.]
        You are on mute, sir.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Payne. You are still on mute.
        Mr. DeFazio. There we go. All right.
        Mr. Payne. Now you are on.
        Mr. DeFazio. I did not mute myself, so you guys must have
    muted me. Thank you.
        To Mr. Porcari: I had mentioned the example of Virginia DOT
    looking at not high, but a higher speed rail connection in lieu
    of an expansion of I-95, which had more than a 100-percent cost
    saving. And they figure they can get even better, more
    efficient throughput.
        You mentioned going from DC to New York, and you used
    examples of how there was no money available in terms of rail,
    and the percentages that would go for aviation or highway. But
    has anyone costed out what it would actually cost to expand,
    adequately, highway capacity from DC to New York the way
    Virginia DOT did from Richmond to DC and/or--I don't know where
    the heck you would get the airport capacity. I don't think--you
    cannot land any more planes at LaGuardia, and Kennedy obviously
    is a bit distant.
        Could you cost that out? Did you compare it?
        Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, for the Maryland portion of I-
    95, we did, at the time, take a look at some preliminary costs.
    And there were some environmental hurdles in a prospective NEPA
    process that actually, at the time, led us to abandon that
    process. It would also require a kind of multistate
    cooperation--which is very difficult in the best of times--and
    a series of coordinated projects between multiple States
    between Maryland and New York in that example.
        By contrast, what we have today in the Northeast Corridor
    passenger rail system is cooperation among the Northeast
    States. We have a well-established pattern of increasing
    service, whether it is commuter rail or mainline Amtrak
    service.
        And the Virginia example that you cite is, I think, a very
    good one and very instructive, in that you have a partnership
    of CSX, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Amtrak that actually
    came to an agreement on badly needed improvements that will
    serve both the freight and the passenger rail network. And it
    is a bit of a misnomer at this point to call that the Northeast
    Corridor when it is being extended through Virginia and there
    are projects right behind that in North Carolina.
        I think the pattern has been set in a positive way for
    cooperation on core multistate corridors like that. What we are
    missing is the consistency and predictability of multiyear
    funding and a Federal partner if the States are willing to put
    up their share.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, got that. There has been criticism of
    high-speed rail or even higher speed rail once constructed, or
    novel, will require subsidies. Are you aware of any high-speed
    rail project in the world that is not Government subsidized? I
    know Virgin in Great Britain says, ``Well, we make money.''
        Yeah, you make money. You don't to have maintain the
    railbed, the Government does that. All you do is a put a train
    set on it and run it.
        Mr. Porcari. Yeah, that is a really important point, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Virtually everyone that I am aware of in the world has had
    a very big public investment in the infrastructure itself. The
    operation by a private operator can be very profitable. I would
    point out that is no different conceptually from our airway
    system, for example, where Federal taxpayer investments make
    possible the operations of our airlines, which in turn are
    profitable. And no different than that, there's a very
    profitable trucking industry in the U.S., which is enabled by
    the public infrastructure investment of the highway system
    itself.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great.
        To Mr. Washington: The High Desert Rail Corridor you are
    talking about, you know, obviously that California high-speed
    rail, for whatever reason, started in the valley instead of
    going into the urban areas on either end or out of the urban
    areas on either end. I have never understood that.
        How are you going to get out of L.A., and do you have
    right-of-way for that? And then what is the potential for
    connecting to the private project projected out of Las Vegas?
        [Pause.)
        Mr. DeFazio. You are muted, Phil. They muted you. Yeah,
    there you go.
        Mr. Washington. Thank you.
        The potential is very, very good to make that connection
    with the private railroad. And actually, that is the plan, and
    we are working with that private railroad right now to do that.
    And that connection, with the help of a twin-bore tunnel, will
    allow train speeds to be at anywhere from 180 to 200 miles an
    hour, getting from that High Desert Corridor to Los Angeles.
    And so it is a huge effort; it links up with high-speed rail
    from the North as well, with the linkup coming into Union
    Station as well.
        So I think the potential to link up both of these are very,
    very great. And we are working with both entities.
        Mr. DeFazio. And what about the right-of-way issue? Do you
    have right-of-way for the L.A. section?
        Mr. Washington. Yes. We have some of the right-of-way and
    we are working on some of the other. But I think the high
    possibility of acquiring what we do not have is very possible.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. And then one other thing you
    have talked about previously. You did not get much chance to
    talk about it, and this will be the last thing, because I am
    going to run out of time, would be the Center for
    Transportation Excellence. I want to see the value added and
    the manufacturing jobs here, in the United States of America.
    We are trying to get rid of the Chinese Communist government-
    owned CRRC, and the very, very heavily subsidized BYD.
        Mr. Washington. Right.
        Mr. DeFazio. Tell us a little bit about the Center for
    Excellence and the prospects there.
        Mr. Washington. Well one of our ideas, very quickly, is
    right now we have, as you know, Mr. Chairman, assembly plants.
    Assembly plants all over the country. What we are proposing is
    a soup-to-nuts, all-included manufacturing outfit in this
    country that manufactures trains from the ground up: forging
    steel, all of those things.
        So we have proposed an industrial park with suppliers
    onsite as well to actually build, again, from the ground up,
    passenger rail car vehicles and locomotives. It is the return
    of manufacturing to this country as we see it.
        We can be that. We can be the Center for Transportation
    Excellence in the largest county in America and bring in
    people. Low-income, foster care kids is what we are thinking
    about, to help educate them to build trains in this country. We
    have the land. We have the willingness from our elected
    officials to do that.
        There is a great demand for railcars in this country, as
    you know. And so we are leaning forward in the foxhole to stand
    up an industrial park in this country.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields
    back.
        And now I recognize my good friend, the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Payne. And always great to
    see you, even though we are halfway across the country right
    now. With the expensive high-speed rail system, maybe one day
    we could get back and forth from DC to Illinois in a very fast
    and effective manner.
        But right now we have got to look at the reality of how do
    we build any of these projects that my colleagues have been
    talking about, and the witnesses have been talking about,
    without investing in new technologies in high-speed rail. Look,
    I have got the high-speed rail corridor between Chicago and St.
    Louis that runs right through my district. We have used it as
    an opportunity to combine tracks and combine opportunities so
    that some of our urban areas are not cut off by multiple rail
    lines within the same community.
        And given your background, Mr. Porcari, with DOT, is there
    anything from a policy's perspective that we can do to
    encourage adoption of newer technologies when it comes to high-
    speed rail?
        Mr. Porcari. Yeah, it is a great question, Congressman
    Davis. And the short answer is yes, there are things that we
    can do to encourage it. The Federal research enterprise, the
    R&D investments that are made by various Federal agencies,
    including the Department of Energy, can be valuable parts of
    this. And the transfer of manufacturing technologies through
    the manufacturing extension partnership in the Department of
    Commerce, and other part of the Federal enterprise can be a
    vertically integrated pipeline, if you will, to take this
    technology, pilot manufacture it, and then make sure that we
    have a private-sector industry that actually manufactures it
    here in the U.S.
        We have never in an integrated way, tried to capitalize on
    the economic potential across the board, including
    manufacturing and R&D, and that is clearly an unrealized
    potential of high-speed rail.
        Mr. Davis. Great. I am glad you agree. I learned before I
    even got to Congress, when I worked on rail projects along that
    corridor as a congressional staffer, that even some of the
    underpass projects that we needed, and overpass projects that
    we needed implemented that were tertiary to the operation of
    the rail system, they were more costly and more delayed because
    of a regulatory environment that encouraged long and cumbersome
    environmental reviews. Mr. Porcari, this is why I introduced
    the One Federal Decision Act that would limit all of the
    environmental reviews and other--what I consider the paperwork
    processes--to 2 years.
        Now as we look ahead and we talk about high-speed rail
    projects that will hopefully get to the speeds that we have
    witnessed over in other countries, but how does that regulatory
    process, from your experience at DOT, how does it slow down the
    ability to actually achieve the goals that are being discussed
    here today versus just talking about them in perpetuity into
    the future?
        Mr. Porcari. The regulatory process, Congressman, can
    clearly be a burden and get in the way; it puts a premium on
    frontloading the process. I am thinking right upfront about how
    you do that.
        One example is actually California high-speed rail, where
    the delegation of the NEPA process to the State level; it is
    the first time it has happened with a rail project from the
    Federal level, has resulted, in my opinion, and I think if you
    look at the numbers, in a much more streamlined process with
    better environmental outcomes.
        So this is not an either/or issue. There have previously
    been highway projects where the NEPA process was assigned to
    the State level from the Federal Government. It has now been
    done for the multiple EISs and EAs that are required for the
    California high-speed rail project. And I think that should be
    a model for the future, because one of the things that you do
    as part of that process is you get all of the environmental
    review agencies around the table in day one. Not sequentially,
    but concurrently.
        Mr. Davis. No, that is a very good point. I agree with you.
    I certainly hope that all of us on this committee realize as we
    look ahead at policy proposals, that we take what has been
    successful, like you just mentioned, and then not have it as an
    exception. If it is working as an exception, then why in the
    world wouldn't we make every State and every project eligible
    for the same thing?
        So I look forward to working with you in the future, Mr.
    Porcari, and the rest of the witnesses, too, and my colleagues,
    to implement some good policies much like you have mentioned.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back.
        We now recognize my colleague from New Jersey, Mr.
    Malinowski, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to our witnesses.
        I want to start by reinforcing the point that Chairman
    DeFazio made that demand would follow supply for efficient
    high-speed rail. I represent, and our chairman represents, as a
    State, New Jersey, where people crowd onto trains every day. At
    least they did before the pandemic. Even though those trains
    take about as long to get them from New Jersey to New York City
    as they did 100 years ago when part of the trip involved
    getting on a passenger ferry to cross the Hudson River. That's
    how little progress we've made, and yet we still had standing
    room only until recently. If we had better, faster train
    service, absolutely the demand would follow, and I think that's
    true in many parts of the country.
        So to understand the program as you said, Mr. Porcari, we
    have to follow the money. We heard that since 1949, the Federal
    investment in our highway system has been around $2 trillion.
    So we didn't let our highway system live or die on the free
    market, did we, to borrow a phrase from Judge Duhon.
        Mr. Porcari. No, Congressman, we did not. What we actually
    provided in that example is consistent multiyear funding with
    essentially guaranteed cost to complete the interstate system.
        Mr. Malinowski. Right. And had we not done that, I would
    imagine that the United States would look a heck of a lot
    different than it does today. In fact, we'd probably have
    radically different population totals in States that
    overwhelmingly rely on the highway system.
        Meanwhile, train investment, Federal investment in rail has
    been around $96 billion, just $96 billion since then. Compare
    that to China where in just the last 14 years, you've had about
    $1 trillion of Government investment in building up a high-
    speed rail network. The United Kingdom, my understanding is
    that they're investing about $120 billion just now in expanding
    their existing network. So just now, a current investment in
    the U.K. that is greater than the sum total of all of our
    investments since 1949.
        Let's talk a little bit about the brass tacks of how this
    works on the Northeast Corridor, which of course, you know very
    well. We have Acela trains, of course, that theoretically can
    run up to 150 miles an hour; in reality, that would be still
    pathetic compared to France and Germany and China, but in
    reality we don't come close to that. So my question for you is
    as a practical matter, why can't we have nice things? What are
    the physical, practical impediments to achieving higher speeds?
    Is it the tracks? Is it the catenary? Is it something else?
    What are the political and regulatory obstacles? And are these
    obstacles surmountable in your view?
        Mr. Porcari. Congressman, we certainly have technical
    obstacles. You mentioned catenary, the right-of-way itself, the
    alignment of it. None of those are insurmountable. We have a
    111-year-old tunnel in New York. We have a B&P tunnel in
    Baltimore that's Civil War era. Those are not the biggest
    obstacles. It is more a question of will. What we want to do as
    a country in infrastructure, we do. And we've never made rail
    really the priority that I think it needs to be. And we've
    never provided meaningful choices for the States to select rail
    and build a multiyear rail program because we don't have the
    funding part of it.
        There are other regulatory and other issues, but I would
    say that the passenger rail system in the U.S. is moving from a
    survival mode to a growth mode, and I think that's a very
    healthy thing for the country, whether you're talking about our
    cross-country service, one of the coastal corridors, or the
    Midwest service. All of that is really important.
        In just the same way we built the interstates, city pairs
    aggregating into a national system, we can really do that with
    the passenger rail system if we have the will.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, and you know, just to
    close, for me this is a practical question. It's a matter of
    competitiveness. It's about whether the United States can do
    and be seen to do great things again. But it's also a question
    of freedom. I want my constituents, I want all my colleagues'
    constituents to have the greater freedom to choose to live
    where they want to live, to be able to get to work in a variety
    of different ways that people all around the world have and
    Americans do not. And I hope that's something we can come
    together around on this committee. Thank you so much. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Payne. Thank the gentleman. It is duly noted that it's
    not a mistake that four Members in the New Jersey delegation
    are on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We
    are bound by railroads in our State coming from every direction
    in every community. So this is a very important topic for us.
        Now, I recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
        [Pause.]
        I believe you're muted, sir.
        [Pause.]
        You're still muted. OK, we will move on. We will recognize
    my good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
        [Pause.]
        I believe you're muted, sir.
        [Pause.]
        OK, next we'll try Mr. Fitzpatrick.
        [Pause.]
        OK. We'll move on to Mr. Stauber.
        [Pause.]
        Oh, Mr. LaMalfa is----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate----
        Mr. Payne. Hey.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Good to see you. I'm a little tied up right
    now. Can I defer to a little later on this panel, please?
        Mr. Payne. The gentleman can defer.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. We will try Mr. Burchett. Did I say it right?
    Burchett.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Steel.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairman Payne----
        Mr. Payne. All right.
        Mrs. Steel [continuing]. Ranking Member.
        Mr. Payne. Please proceed.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you. Thank you, all the witnesses today.
    The original price tag for California high-speed rail, I've
    been talking about California's high-speed rail, was supposed
    to be $33 billion. Over the past decades, the price has
    exploded to more than $100 billion and keeps going up with no
    deadline for completion. This project is unpopular in
    California and Governor Newsom has stated that there simply
    isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego let alone from
    San Francisco to Los Angeles.
        As mentioned by Judge Trey Duhon in this hearing, this is
    taxpayer-backed disaster with no expectations of it working
    today, tomorrow, or next year. The failed project has also
    replaced farms, small businesses, and houses with the half-
    built train tracks and has ruined rural and suburban
    communities.
        In 2019, the Department of Transportation stopped payment
    of $929 million to California and ended its agreement with the
    State for high-speed rail because of their continued failures
    on the project. When Secretary Buttigieg testified before this
    committee and I raised these concerns, he said we have not had
    the type of resources or commitment that other countries have.
    One hundred billion dollars is a lot of resources. My
    constituents are already taxed enough with California State and
    local taxes and skyrocketing gas prices making it unaffordable
    to live. I just came back from Texas. Their gas price was $2-
    something and we are paying over $4 in California. We must
    preserve our local economy by lowering taxes, not raising them.
    And we must not continue throwing tax dollars into a high-speed
    money pit.
        As I stated, Judge Duhon, like you, I have a question. I'm
    not opposed to high-speed rail. California's high-speed rail
    has failed, and the Texas high-speed rail project is supposed
    to be privately funded. I am concerned about taxpayer subsidies
    going to this project if it continues to follow California's
    track record for mass delays and cost overruns. What are some
    of the lessons we learned from both of these projects? Is it
    fair to compare Japan's successful high-speed rail system to
    this project we are talking about in the United States today?
    Since I've been riding the high-speed rail in Japan, I was
    raised in Japan. You know what, it's a very reasonable price
    and you can go really fast. So I'm not really against it the
    same as you, but just give us those lessons, what we can do in
    the United States.
        Mr. Duhon. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. And
    you know, that really gets to the heart of the matter if we're
    going to do successful high-speed rail. We have to really look
    at the factors, the real factors that make high-speed rail
    work, and what are those factors.
        There have been a lot of folks that simply take the
    position because you have a densely populated area in Houston
    and Dallas that if we draw up a high-speed rail line in between
    those two, that everybody all of a sudden is going to go to
    this high-speed rail line and ride it. And that's simply not
    true.
        There are so many things that go into what makes high-speed
    rail successful. I'll give you one example. The Reason
    Foundation has done studies where they have found that where
    you put in high-speed rail where there was previously existing
    trains in service, where you're replacing an older mode with a
    newer mode, and people were already used to using transit. And
    the example in Japan that you gave is a perfect example. A lot
    of people in Japan don't own their own vehicles. Their
    employers pay and subsidize for them to get on that high-speed
    rail. Between Houston and Dallas, we have maybe 2,000 to 3,000
    flights a day that go between Houston and Dallas and a lot of
    those are business travelers. So when you compare it, it's just
    not apples to apples. And that's why this project, we've said
    from day one would never cashflow.
        You know, where's the end terminus? For example, the
    station in Houston is still 9 miles away from downtown. So how
    do your business travelers get to the station rather than just
    go down to Houston Hobby Airport and fly to Love Field which
    puts them 5 minutes from downtown Dallas? So these are all the
    kind of factors that go into--I can just tell you this. When
    you're looking at high-speed rail, and you're looking at costs
    that have gone from $10 billion to $30 billion and it really
    didn't cashflow at $10 billion, and then you have $30 billion,
    and you've got these very high projected ridership numbers, I
    just can tell you this. The folks in Waller County, the folks
    that I know, a family of four is not going to pay $1,000 to
    ride a train between Houston and Dallas when they can get there
    on a $50 tank of gas 1\1/2\ hours later. It's just not going to
    happen. So it's not a mass transit solution, at least not for
    this corridor.
        And I think we've got to be real careful because otherwise
    it will--you know, having a project like this fail will hurt
    projects where they should go, like on the Northeast Corridor
    where you already have people that are using transit and we
    need better transit in those areas. But this project, for a lot
    of reasons, does not fit the mold for successful high-speed
    rail.
        Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Judge Duhon. I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize Mr.
    Moulton for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct
    another question to the judge. I spent some time living in
    Dallas, and I'm very familiar with Texas and appreciate all the
    uniqueness of that State. You stated that you don't believe, in
    your personal belief at least, that Texas Central Railway will
    make an operating profit, that it will require continued
    subsidies after construction is complete. Does your highway
    system and airport system require continued subsidies?
        Mr. Duhon. Congressman, thank you for your question, first
    off, and of course, highways and airlines and the airports, I'm
    sure receive--I mean highways in Texas, of course, are
    primarily built by TxDOT along with Federal funds. So
    absolutely there's no doubt about that.
        Mr. Moulton. We've actually--Judge, we've actually
    transferred about $158 billion in general funds, so you know,
    not quite twice as much but almost twice as much as we've
    invested in Amtrak in its entire history into the Highway Trust
    Fund. Those are not user fees. That's general funds transfers
    just since 2008. So actually, there's a lot of operating
    subsidies that go in there, and that's not even talking about
    the operating subsidies that go to things like the highway
    patrol and emergency services. There's a lot of support
    structure required to subsidize these highways as well.
        We did a study in Massachusetts that looked at the
    subsidies that taxpayers pay for our highway infrastructure
    here in Massachusetts. It was $60 billion a year, whether or
    not you own a car because that's not in user fees. And I know
    that I-45 between Dallas and Houston is the second deadliest
    stretch of highway in the entire country. So you look at what
    they're planning to build there, it's pretty significant.
        Are you familiar with the plans to widen I-45 and make
    other highway improvements between Houston and Dallas and how
    much those will cost?
        Mr. Duhon. Yes, Congressman, I am familiar with the
    projected costs of the expansions. And you know, there is a
    cost to transportation, there's no doubt, and subsidies. I just
    would remind everyone that this project, Texas Central Railway,
    was never predicated on public dollars. It was predicated on a
    privately financed system. So----
        Mr. Moulton. I understand that, Judge, and I agree that
    that is how the project was initially sold. It's interesting,
    you know, you never hear of a highway project being sold on
    private investment because frankly, the business community does
    not see a return on investment for highway projects except in
    very rare circumstances with toll roads.
        And so, it's actually a remarkable testament to the innate
    efficiency of high-speed rail that you can get a positive
    return on the investment. Infrastructure funds invest in high-
    speed rail systems all over the world for construction, but
    there are a number of high-speed rail systems that actually
    operate at a profit whereas it's very hard to find highway
    systems that operate at a profit at all, even after the
    infrastructure is built, when you look at the system, that is,
    not just the companies that travel over it.
        When Microsoft looked at the Cascadia Corridor up in the
    Pacific Northwest, and we've heard testimony from Washington
    DOT there too, they determined that to build the high-speed
    rail line would cost half as much as expanding the highway by
    just one lane in either direction. And of course, if you just
    expand the highway, no one goes any faster. Lots of studies and
    experience have shown that congestion actually just increases
    over time.
        But even in a perfect scenario, driving in the middle of
    the night, you might go 80 miles an hour, which is a far cry
    from 250 miles per hour on ultra-high-speed rail in the
    Cascadia Corridor. Because of that travel speed difference and
    the time difference, you also get all these additional benefits
    that you wouldn't get from expanding the highway because
    businesses, travelers, families, are much closer. You can live
    in many more places--and still work downtown--than you could
    before. They've estimated about $350 billion in economic
    benefits if you build that high-speed rail system. And so just
    do the math, I mean, if you want to build high-speed rail for
    half the cost and you get $350 billion in additional benefits,
    that seems to make a lot of sense.
        But there's another thing that--and then by the way, the
    same estimates apply to California where it looks like about
    twice as much money to expand highway and airport capacity. It
    also takes less space.
        Mr. Porcari, last question. We just have a few seconds. How
    much do you have to expand highway lanes to accommodate the
    capacity of a single high-speed rail line? In other words, how
    many highway lanes does it take?
        Mr. Porcari. In the California example, Congressman, it's 6
    lanes and 91 airport gates and 2 new runways.
        Mr. Moulton. OK. So that's going to take a lot of space.
        Mr. Porcari. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Moulton. And a lot more farms and houses, as my
    colleague from California was mentioning, than building high-
    speed rail.
        Mr. Porcari. That's correct.
        Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. I thank the gentleman and after I recognize the
    next Member on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Moulton will
    take the gavel for a set period of time. I now recognize Mr.
    Burchett for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    very much to allow me to be here. My first question is for Mr.
    Washington. You discussed some of the benefits of high-speed
    rail done right with extra--seems like you had an extra
    emphasis on the ``done right'' portion of it, but your State's
    high-speed rail project currently underway has already more
    than doubled in cost, and its completion date has been delayed
    nearly 10 years. And I'm wondering how is this an example of
    what you would consider to be a high-speed rail ``done right''?
        Mr. Washington. Well, thank you for the question,
    Congressman. I understand the concerns and the reservations
    that some Members of this body have with California high-speed
    rail. The best I can do though is speak on behalf of my agency,
    which has jurisdiction over rail across the largest county in
    America, that is, L.A. County.
        But we're confident that if given the appropriate resources
    and the best practices that we have employed, that we can
    dramatically improve the lives of people in our county. And
    some of those are, you know, property acquisition done right,
    limited change orders, decentralizing decisionmaking,
    partnering with the contractor and the various cities. This
    template has worked for us, and I think it can be replicated
    around the country. And I think that doing it right--and I had
    an emphasis on ``doing it right'' that includes the things I
    just mentioned, I think we can build high-speed rail all over
    this country.
        Mr. Burchett. Secretary Porcari, you talked about the need
    for us to create a passenger rail trust fund, much the same as
    our current Highway Trust Fund. How do you propose generating
    revenue for that, and can it be done without raising or
    creating new taxes?
        Mr. Porcari. Congressman, thanks for the question. A
    passenger rail trust fund should be eligible for every
    transportation revenue source that we currently have. And there
    are ones on the horizon that potentially may raise revenues as
    well like highway-based user fees. But the real point is that
    any form of surface transportation should be on a level playing
    field for Federal funding whether it's rail, highway, or other,
    and let the local jurisdictions decide what is the right mix
    for them.
        Mr. Burchett. Judge, let me ask you, many of the high-speed
    rail projects seem to favor the urban areas over the rural
    areas of America, and based on your experience, what do you
    think we can do at the Federal level to make sure that taxpayer
    dollars be wisely spent on projects that will benefit
    everybody? Is that even possible?
        Mr. Duhon. Thank you, Congressman. I really do appreciate
    that question because that is the one thing that has struck me
    having dealt with the proposed project between Houston and
    Dallas for several years and having interactions with the
    Federal Railroad Administration. You know, we just ask that
    local communities be treated as equal partners. That is the
    biggest thing I can emphasize to have meaningful and
    substantive conversations where we can talk about how this will
    impact our community and how can we either work around that or
    work through it.
        The city of Waller, which is partly in Waller County,
    they've been working for decades to build the city center. It's
    really going to be a beautiful concept. The high-speed rail
    line blows right through the middle of it and completely
    destroys it. We wanted to sit down and have some conversations,
    can the route be adjusted? Can they look at other routes other
    than the one that was preselected?
        And the FRA really refused to engage with us. And it was so
    disappointing. I was also president of the Waller County
    Subregional Planning Commission. This was a group we put
    together for the purpose of engaging in coordination with both
    Federal and State agencies. We could not get anywhere with the
    FRA. We requested to coordinate with Texas Department of
    Transportation because they are a State agency. They are also
    required to coordinate. And they met with us once, and we went
    through and told them all the impacts that this could have and
    please give this to the FRA, please make sure they are aware of
    these. And then when we tried to have a second meeting with
    them, they refused. And they refused because they were being
    instructed by the FRA not to meet with us. If you can believe
    that. They were instructed--that's what they said: We are being
    told not to meet with you.
        Mr. Burchett. What does the FRA stand for?
        Mr. Duhon. Federal Railroad Administration.
        Mr. Burchett. OK, OK. I was just making sure it wasn't some
    Texas deal.
        Mr. Duhon. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
        Mr. Burchett. That's all right. I'm from Tennessee. We know
    about TVA and----
        Mr. Duhon. OK, I gotcha.
        Mr. Burchett. The IRS and the rest of those.
        Mr. Duhon. We had to sue TxDOT in State court. We won. We
    had to take it up on appeal. We still won. And then when they
    sat down with us and we said, OK, so tell us what's going on
    with this project, they said, we're no longer an accredited
    agency, and we're not in the loop anymore. So it was almost a
    concerted effort to keep us from engaging and having any input
    in the project. So please, any successful project has to have
    meaningful engagement with the local communities that you are
    going to substantially impact when you bring a project like
    this through the middle of their community.
        Mr. Burchett. I appreciate you saying that. I mean, it goes
    back to what Mr. Washington had said about the template that
    you have in place, have to get it upfront. A good lawyer friend
    told me one time good fences make good neighbors.
        Mr. Duhon. That's true----
        Mr. Burchett. You all didn't have the good fences.I----
        Mr. Duhon [continuing]. Twenty-five years, I can say that
    as absolutely true.
        Mr. Burchett. Right on. Chairman Moulton, I yield the rest
    of my time back to you, brother, and it's good seeing you, my
    friend.
        Mr. Moulton [presiding]. Good seeing you, too, sir. Thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you for serving our country, brother.
        Mr. Moulton. And you, too. And you, too. Great to have you
    on, great to be on the committee here, with you.
        So next we are going to go to Congresswoman Newman of
    Illinois.
        Ms. Newman. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Moulton. You are very welcome.
        Ms. Newman. And thank--there we go. Thank you, Chair, and
    thank you, Ranking Member.
        Today, this has been a very informative day. Really, all
    over the place, around higher speed rail and high-speed rail.
    And I have some macro questions--and then if anyone wants to
    elaborate behind them--and they are focused at Mr. Porcari, Mr.
    Washington, and Mr. Kunz. Because I would like a macrolevel
    look at it. But also, perhaps Mr. Washington could give us more
    of a microlevel look at it. And so it is fairly simple.
        So in my district--well, ironically, I have more lines of
    track than any other district in our Nation. We have several
    transportation deserts; it is fascinating, right, and they have
    to do with connecting commuter lines so people can get from
    point A to B. There are these big gaps where shift workers have
    to walk for several miles across counties, or string together
    bus, rail, walking, and other. And we have come up with some
    unique solutions. There are some public transit on-demand
    ideas, what have you.
        But what would solve that is some higher speed rail
    programs that were very short in nature, like less than 20
    miles of a stretch. And I can think of two or three areas where
    literally thousands of folks go from point A to B that are
    shift workers that would really benefit from high-speed rail.
    There are also some wide-open spaces.
        Now, I know that we have NEPA regulations that, you know,
    phase 1 and the beginning of phase 2, very tough with regard to
    displacement, and finding the space, and all of that. There is
    no shortage of issues. But the question then becomes how
    expensive is it to not do this? How hard is it on the
    environment to not do this? And how deadly is it to not do
    this?
        And my question for Mr. Porcari, I will start with him, is
    that has it been studied, the impact of not doing higher speed
    rail and high-speed rail?
        Mr. Porcari. It is a great question, Congresswoman.
        There is certainly an opportunity cost in not doing this
    work. And you are seeing some of those calculations being done
    by metropolitan planning organizations around the country right
    now on different modal choices.
        And for example, adding commuter rail, adding better
    transit service. What that means in environmental terms--and it
    is very project specific, obviously. But if you look at the
    growth of the country on the long-term basis, it is clear that
    we need to balance our transportation system with better rail
    choices, with both new and emerging technologies, if we are
    going to do it.
        And in environmental terms, if you look, for example, at
    California's Cap-and-Trade Program, emissions reductions, and
    the drive towards emissions reductions, are changing policies
    around the States. And so I believe that is something you are
    going to see more States doing in the future because of those
    avoided emissions.
        Ms. Newman. Thank you.
        And then if Mr. Kunz or Mr. Washington have any other
    comments. I have one more quick question after that, but if
    either of you want to contribute, I would love to hear.
        Mr. Washington. Yes.
        Very quickly, how expensive is it to not do it? I think we
    can quantify that in lives. In lives lost on our highway
    system. When I think about a system in moving people--you
    mentioned 20 miles--this is ideal for a light rail system. We
    are building many, many--much track of light rail systems here
    in Los Angeles County.
        And I think about the systems that go directly into our
    Nation's airports as well. There could be 50,000, maybe 100,000
    people working at some of our larger airports, and trains get a
    big portion of them to that airport.
        I think the last thing I would point to is the environment.
    You know, how we want to live. We know that transportation is
    the biggest emitter of pollution. And so how expensive is it
    not to do this? I would measure that in lives.
        Ms. Newman. Thank you.
        And Mr. Kunz, if you have anything to share.
        Mr. Kunz. Yes. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
        The other big thing that has not been mentioned is the cost
    of peoples' time and waste sitting, stuck in traffic, or stuck
    in airports. It is estimated to be several hundred billion
    dollars a year.
        And then as a businessperson, time is money. So if all your
    people are taking all day to get anywhere, your entire company
    is less competitive, especially against nations that actually
    have these efficient systems, and then they can outcompete us.
        Ms. Newman. Good, thank you.
        And rather than do my next question, I just would like to
    enter for the record that I suggest at both the city
    metropolitan level and at the DOT level--and I will share this
    with the Secretary of Transportation--that we stop quibbling
    about whether it should or should not be done and all of the
    stumbling blocks.
        Because there are prior issues attached to this. There are
    NEPA challenges, there are construction challenges, there are--
    everything. I think we have to start coming together and
    thinking about how we get this done and not why it should or
    should not be done, because it is clear it needs to be done.
        And then I will say one final thing. There is no better
    reason to do it rather than to create opportunity to make our
    environment cleaner and healthier and to save lives. So I am
    hoping that when I do have my meeting with Secretary Buttigieg
    that we can just move forward in getting this done and figure
    it out.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. Your time
    has expired. But I agree.
        And I think it is important to just point out in that
    regard, Judge, you were complaining about the process. They
    seem like very legitimate complaints you had with not being
    involved in the process. Of course, that was under the Trump
    administration, that EIS was handled with the FRA. I think you
    will find a different reception with the Biden administration.
        OK. Next on the list is my colleague from Indiana, Mr.
    Carson.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Moulton. Mr. Carson, are you here and unmuted?
        Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Moulton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carson. All right. Sorry about that. I was having some
    technical difficulties here.
        Mr. Moulton. We still cannot see you but we can hear you.
        Mr. Carson. Yeah.
        So I am curious. So the need for Federal Government,
    essentially the need for--I am sorry, I am having a problem
    with this camera. OK. I am sorry.
        So the need for Federal investment--this is for everyone--
    compared to other industrialized nations. In terms of the
    United States, our passenger rail investment falls far behind
    many of our allies. Now as you all know, opponents of more
    Federal investment, some on the committee, argue that private
    investment is more important than Federal investment. What
    would you say to rebut those views?
        Mr. Porcari. If I may, Congressman.
        Mr. Carson. Yes.
        Mr. Porcari. The two are not irreconcilable, so there are
    many rail systems that are privately operated with an operating
    profit that are built on a governmental investment that built
    the infrastructure. And public-private partnerships are an
    established model that have worked around the world for rail
    operations.
        But again, I would point out that it is taking a public
    funding component to make those happen in every case.
        Mr. Washington. And I would add to that if I could,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Carson. Yes.
        Mr. Washington. I think the need to build and rebuild
    infrastructure in this country is so great that we need what I
    call the three-legged funding and financing stool. The first
    stool is the Federal Government. That is one of the legs.
    Currently that leg is wobbly.
        And then you need local investment like we have here in
    L.A. County: Measure M, we went to the voters.
        And then finally the private sector. That three-legged
    stool is what we need to build and rebuild infrastructure in
    this country. The private-sector equity, they want to invest in
    infrastructure. We know that leg is strong. The local
    initiatives, the last 2 or 3 years, there has been a 70-percent
    success rate on local initiatives and that stool is strong.
        The wobbly one is the Federal. If we get that right, I
    think we can build and rebuild the infrastructure in this
    country.
        Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentleman.
        And just so everyone knows, there are several Republicans
    who said they would like to come back. If you do come back to
    the hearing, please just let the committee staff know and we
    will get you on the list. But for right now, we are going to go
    to the next Democrat on the list, who is Ms. Wilson from
    Florida.
        Ms. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you to Mr. Chairman, and to
    Chairman Payne, and Ranking Member Crawford for today's
    hearing.
        In the early 20th century, the arrival of Henry Flagler's
    railroad put Miami on the map. My grandfather migrated from the
    Bahamas to build the railroad and help to incorporate the city
    of Miami.
        As we build back better, Congress must invest in this
    industry to increase our country's rail capacity. This
    investment will create high-paying jobs, union jobs, and will
    help rebuild our middle class. In addition to high-speed rail,
    we need to provide increased funding for heavy rail projects.
        For decades, I fought to construct heavy rail on the 9-mile
    North Corridor project in my district to connect my community
    to more opportunities.
        I thank the witnesses for appearing today and I have a few
    questions, but this question is for Ms. Eckert.
        My mantra in Congress has always been jobs, jobs, jobs. Can
    you speak on how the California High-Speed Rail Authority Small
    Business policy, coupled with the Buy America standard, have
    spurred the State's economy, generated jobs, and supported more
    than 600 small businesses?
        Ms. Eckert. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
        So the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the
    California State Building and Construction Trades Council
    created--have a community benefits agreement, and in the
    agreement, there are certain targeted hire provisions.
        So a certain percentage, about 30 percent, of the workers
    in the area should be making about $32,000 to $40,000 annually.
    And 10 percent of those workers should be comprised of people
    who are facing traditional barriers to employment. This has
    created an opportunity and a road for those individuals to
    participate in high-standard registered apprenticeship
    programs, and work under proper worksite safety standards, get
    fair compensation, and then a road to the middle class that
    would follow them to more projects than just the California
    high-speed rail project. So their skills are transferrable.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. OK. In your testimony, you spoke
    about the California high-speed rail project's community
    benefits. Please highlight how this agreement helped
    disadvantaged workers, and workers facing traditional barriers
    to employment.
        Ms. Eckert. So just from the--my last answer, it is a
    targeted hire program. So that ensures that people in the
    disadvantaged community have access to the apprenticeship
    programs that are in that area. So those individuals, people
    who--emancipated youth, previously incarcerated individuals--
    have the opening point to participate in the gold standard
    apprenticeship programs, and then work on the California high-
    speed rail project.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Kunz, in your testimony, you emphasized the role of the
    Federal Government in spurring investments in high-speed rail.
    Please elaborate on the benefits that other countries are
    receiving from their robust Government investment into
    infrastructure, specifically high-speed rail.
        Mr. Kunz. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
        Every country that has built high-speed rail has benefitted
    numerous ways. It has created jobs, it has created access, it
    has brought economic development to depressed areas, it has
    enabled people to be efficient with their time, it has enabled
    them to find affordable housing, affordable transportation to
    get home quickly to be with their families. The benefits are
    just numerous and every nation that has built this, has all
    experienced those same benefits. And we are definitely set to
    experience all the same here, in this country, because a lot of
    our lines have the exact same perimeters of the city payers,
    the population densities, and the mobility of the population.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, gentlewoman, for yielding back.
        And with no Republicans showing up so far, I will go to my
    colleague from Washington, on both this committee and the Armed
    Services Committee, Ms. Strickland. You have 5 minutes.
        Ms. Strickland. Great. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member
    Crawford, it is my honor to be here today for my first hearing
    as vice chair of the subcommittee, especially as we look
    forward to the future of high-speed rail and how this is going
    to increase our competitiveness, equity, and economic
    development.
        So I am thrilled to start with Rachel Smith of the Seattle
    Metro Chamber of Commerce to speak to high-speed rail
    opportunities in the Pacific Northwest and Washington State.
        Now as you have noted in your testimony, Ms. Smith, the
    Cascadia Ultra-High-Speed Rail Corridor Line could result in
    the reduction of 6 million metric tons of CO2 over the first 40
    years of operation. So from an environmental perspective, and
    for the economic development of the Metropolitan Seattle
    region, it is clear this investment will do a lot of work.
        [Off-mic comment.]
        Ms. Strickland. So Ms. Smith, how is the Pacific Northwest
    through Cascadia or otherwise, uniquely poised to implement
    high-speed rail spurred by Federal investments?
        Ms. Smith. Well thank you, Congresswoman, so much for the
    question.
        You know, our region is poised in so many different ways to
    take advantage of robust Federal investment in ultra-high-speed
    rail. First of all, we have the coalition. So as I mentioned in
    my testimony, we have elected officials from the highest levels
    of Government in our State and nationally, all the way down to
    local elected officials who have said they support high-speed
    rail being developed in our community. So we really have robust
    coalition support to do this.
        We also have a history in our region of, as I said, sort of
    partnerships to get big projects like this done. You know,
    typically we rely, from a funding perspective, on local,
    regional, and State taxes, public-private partnerships which
    have been mentioned, fare box recovery, and other sort of
    internal revenue generation. And then of course a robust
    Federal partnership. So we exercise those muscles well to be
    able to put together a funding package to accomplish big
    projects.
        We also have a great relationship with our labor community
    in terms of both the public and private sector. And I think
    that helps streamline all of the work that we would want to do
    for the actual project delivery.
        Again, at the end of the day, our community has made a
    commitment to transit. We have made a commitment to transit in
    our bus service, we have made a commitment to transit in light
    rail. We recently passed a $54 billion light rail package in
    2016. In 2008, we passed an $18 billion light rail package. So
    our community has made those commitments to transit and we are
    starting to see the benefits of that.
        So I really think that we are poised in every way, from
    coalition, to funding, to partnerships with labor, to a
    commitment to this kind of technology, and this kind of growth
    in our community.
        Ms. Strickland. Great. And I have one other question for
    you. We know that congestion on Interstate 5, I describe as
    soul-crushing, whether you are trying to get from Seattle to
    Tacoma, down to Joint Base Lewis-McChord into the State
    capital. And you know, this has everything to do with access to
    jobs, it has to do with readiness for our troops at JBLM, the
    largest military base on the west coast. And we know that we
    often say to folks, ``Well, let's just add another lane of
    highway.''
        And I am sure this was touched on already, but can you talk
    again about what the secretary of transportation for the State
    has said about the cost of adding a lane of I-5 on the same
    corridor versus investing in ultra-high-speed rail?
        Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
        The bottom line is there is no way to meet the capacity to
    move people through the highway system as there is on transit.
    Every rail line that we add is exponentially more people. And
    when we really think about the efficient movement of people and
    goods, there is absolutely a need for our highway and road
    system to work. And as I said in my testimony, to carry goods
    from our manufacturing and farms into our communities, cities,
    and towns.
        But for the efficient movement of people, we really need to
    have robust investments in transit and rail; that sort of
    reliable grade-separated rail, again, exponentially moves more
    people, and does it at a cost lower than a new highway lane in
    our region or in any region.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Ms. Smith.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentlelady for your questions.
        And I would just add, you know, if we build a high-speed
    rail, no one is going to force you to take it. You have that
    freedom of choice that Americans do not have today. And yet,
    travelers all around the world have--I do not understand why
    travelers in China should have so much more freedom than we do
    today, in America. I think we really would like it if we
    rectify that.
        I now turn to my colleague from California, Mrs.
    Napolitano. You have 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        I would like to first address my question to Phil, a good
    old friend. How are you, sir?
        Mr. Washington. I am great, ma'am.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Can you talk about the Union Station
    improvements to the Santa Fe Springs Rosecrans and Marquardt
    grade separation in my area, funded by the high-speed rail, and
    why are they important to my community? I know Marquardt and
    the overcrossing is going to be a tremendous help, but can you
    expound on that, please?
        Mr. Washington. Yes. And great to see you, Congresswoman.
        First on Marquardt. This is the deadliest grade crossing,
    probably in the country, definitely in the State of California.
    And high-speed rail money is providing a grade separation at
    that most deadly area in the country. And I think it will save
    lives. I know it will save lives. And it will be very, very
    efficient.
        Union Station. Union Station will be the hub for high-speed
    rail when it comes down. Also, it is the hub and the link to
    southern California for Amtrak; for our commuter rail service,
    Metrolink; and our great system here in L.A. County.
        The improvements that high-speed rail have funded are in
    the neighborhood of $423 million to develop a flyover, if you
    will. Union Station is a stub-end station, meaning trains come
    in and they have to leave the same way: they have to back out.
    And so the efficiency of a run-through track here in Los
    Angeles, and other historic train stations, make it very, very
    efficient. Trains do not have to idle, sometimes up to an hour,
    before they leave out.
        So those improvements, both at Union Station and Marquardt,
    are very, very needed, and will save lives and also make things
    more efficient.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. I look forward to
    learning more about the benefits it is going to bring.
        Mr. Porcari and Mr. Kunz, in seeking Federal investment for
    high-speed rail from all taxpayers, how can we ensure that the
    low income can afford the tickets to high-speed rail?
        Mr. Porcari. Congresswoman, it is a great question.
        And one of the ways that we can do that is through a fare
    structure that recognizes ability to pay through working with
    employers to encourage employer contributions towards the cost
    of using the system. And making sure that in general, the
    affordability for everyone of the system is of paramount
    concern. And any operator of the system, if it is a private
    operator, that should be part of the contractual arrangement
    where affordability is considered.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Kunz.
        Mr. Kunz. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I would like to point out in France, the country that has a
    mature, high-speed rail system, actually has launched a second
    no-frills, high-speed system that literally, you can get from
    like, Paris to Nice for about $20.
        So the beauty of high-speed rail is that they are a very
    efficient systems, they are very high-capacity, and they are
    not that expensive to operate. So it is actually easy for these
    operators to provide low-cost tickets for everybody to ride. So
    these are really meant for everybody.
        Mrs. Napolitano. It is a little different because I was
    able to go on some of those in Europe a while back, but the
    Government owns the land. So there is not a problem with
    eminent domain and issues that preclude it from going over. So
    I think that somehow, we have to be very cognizant that the
    low-income taxpayer whose money goes into it, is somehow
    recognized, and be able to help.
        I don't know if their employer will be willing to pitch in,
    but I certainly hope that we can come to a solution because it
    doesn't seem fair that a taxpayer's money go into this process
    and not getting a benefit out of it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentlelady. We will now go to Ms.
    Titus from Nevada.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Washington, I represent Las Vegas. So many of your
    constituents are coming back to my district now, and we are
    glad that they are. But they often have to spend hours sitting
    on I-15 just in back-to-back traffic that is hardly moving. And
    you see that on the weekend, Friday coming, and Sunday going.
    So that is why I am excited about the development of the
    Brightline West project that will connect the two areas: Las
    Vegas and southern California.
        And you mentioned in your testimony that a recent study
    estimated that the annual ridership would be over 10 million
    people. We are optimistic about that, too. And so that would
    put this intercity rail line among the top in terms of
    ridership.
        So I wonder, if given your role in managing a multimodal
    transit system that serves tens of millions of passengers every
    year, how your agency is coordinating with projects like
    Brightline West to ensure intermodal connections, and what
    lessons you have learned to date that other metropolitan areas
    like Las Vegas could use to get these kind of projects
    developed?
        Mr. Washington. Well thank you for the question,
    Congresswoman.
        And yes, Interstate 15 is terrible. I was up in Barstow at
    the National Training Center, being a retired Army guy, went up
    there and talked to some troops at Fort Irwin.
        I think the 10.8 million riders annually is a real number.
    From Las Vegas to Apple Valley, and then on to Los Angeles, the
    High Desert Corridor, the land and the right-of-way that we
    have purchased being the L.A. Metro Authority, is paying off.
    We have about $170 million or so for right-of-way acquisition
    to help Brightline get from Palmdale, which is about 54 miles
    out, all the way into Los Angeles Union Station where I happen
    to be right now. And so we are--and the connection, once they
    get to Union Station, branching out to all areas of L.A.
    County, and connecting to the system--the local system here, is
    incredible.
        I think the other thing that I put in my testimony is being
    able to come from an affordable area, which is a high-poverty
    area in a place called Palmdale and be able to get to Union
    Station in L.A. within 40 minutes, opens up a whole range of
    opportunities for families.
        So we are working very, very closely with Brightline right
    now on environmental issues, electrification issues, and those
    things. And our hope is that they will break ground--I know
    they are going to be breaking ground within the next 12 months
    or so.
        Ms. Titus. Well, I am very encouraged by that. I think they
    will, too. And we have been trying to work it with the Ways and
    Means Committee to lift the cap on some of those bonds that
    they have applied for to use in the construction of it here in
    Nevada.
        So I see it not just as a tourist train, but as a business
    travel train, and even some people may commute; live here for
    the tax purposes, and commute to work somewhere in California,
    or for some reason, back and forth.
        Mr. Washington. Yes. Yes, and that is the idea. The idea is
    if you can get from Vegas to Los Angeles in, what, 2\1/2\ hours
    or something like that, that is incredible. And on the way,
    people can go either way. If they live in Apple Valley, they
    can go to Las Vegas to work, or they can go to Los Angeles to
    work and still have affordable housing.
        So it is--I think it is a project of regional and national
    significance just because of the economic benefit to people
    that otherwise would not have that; i.e., low-income folks.
        Ms. Titus. I agree. I think we need to think regionally,
    not just locally, and this is a good example of a project like
    that. There is no reason that the Southwest can't be united
    like the Northeast is. Our distances are longer, but we have
    other advantages that they don't have. So thank you very much.
    I yield back.
        Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. And
    of course we can't, as Americans today, travel quickly
    between--travel at high speed, I should say, between California
    and Nevada and then back to California. But we can do that on
    this committee. So we go back to California with my colleague
    now, Mr. Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. It is good to have a high-speed connection
    with you right now, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank you. I want
    to really commend Chair Payne for choosing to focus on this
    important issue. And what I've heard today is that if we do
    this right, investments in high-speed rail can improve
    connections between communities, provide better access to jobs,
    housing, and other social services, rebuild America's
    manufacturing base, and create good-paying jobs that will
    depend on that manufacturing while giving us a cleaner, more
    efficient way to move people as we tackle the climate crisis.
        That is all pretty exciting to me. And I want to bring
    attention, though, to the title of this hearing, which is when
    all of this potential meets limited resources. And it is really
    no wonder that we face this dilemma, especially when we compare
    the United States to other countries around the world. We've
    really starved investment in passenger rail capacity while
    lavishing generous Federal matches on highway funding.
        And you get what you pay for. So many State transportation
    projects we know receive robust Federal support. But as was
    pointed out, Secretary Porcari pointed this out, if you look at
    the much-maligned California high-speed rail project, their
    2030 business plan anticipates 85 percent of its funding from
    State sources, only 15 percent from Federal. We've got the
    fifth largest economy in the world.
        California is the leader in tackling climate change. And it
    has been able to keep this project alive by dedicating a
    significant portion of its cap-and-trade revenues. But other
    States don't have those kinds of resources. All States that
    want to step into the 21st century with high-speed rail are
    going to need more Federal support to do it.
        So Secretary Porcari, you discussed the underinvestment in
    rail relative to highways and aviation, and you used Baltimore
    to New York City, that corridor, as an example. Heading south,
    you also have Baltimore to Washington. And you've got existing
    service with Amtrak and MARC. Even with the dedicated trust
    fund that you recommend, we are going to be stretched to fund
    projects and also build new projects that don't cannibalize
    ridership from existing service. So I want to ask you how can
    we ensure that high-speed rail complements rather than competes
    with existing service in corridors like this.
        Mr. Porcari. It is a great question, Congressman, and
    first, the service characteristics of high-speed rail versus,
    say, commuter rail are very different. So the high-speed rail
    service would typically be over longer stage lengths with fewer
    intermediary stops. But in practical terms, States today are
    required to make those difficult financial trade-offs that you
    talked about.
        And one of the early activities they would likely engage in
    is to make sure that they are not cannibalizing their existing
    service in the planning process by making sure that any
    investments are net ridership increases and in both
    environmental and equity terms are actually a plus for the
    communities as well. That is part of the philosophy and
    certainly the purpose behind the NEPA process to begin with.
        It is also a fundamental tenet, I think, of good
    interaction and community planning. And you can codify that
    through a community benefits agreement where the local
    communities know exactly what they are getting in terms of
    benefits, whether it is local employment or a better commuter
    rail service in return for that investment.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Washington, I would love to hear a little more about
    this manufacturing hub that you described. That is an
    incredible vision about building these systems entirely here in
    the United States and all of the good jobs and other benefits
    that would be associated with that. Can you tell us a little
    more about where this would be, what it would look like and
    what we would get out of it?
        Mr. Washington. Well, what we envision, Congressman, is an
    industrial park, an industrial park with suppliers onsite with
    a test track onsite. Usually when you get rail vehicles, they
    have to be tested. And it takes long to get into the testing
    queue in Pueblo, Colorado. And so that takes a lot of time.
    There are climate chambers where the vehicle needs to be tested
    as well.
        So what we are proposing is a soup-to-nuts manufacturing
    facility, train people to build trains in this country and
    build locomotives in this country and manufacturing them in
    this country. I think the economy would benefit. The place that
    we are looking at, we are still talking about that, but it
    would likely be in the north county area of L.A. County where
    there is a ton of space. There is room for a test track.
        And we see being able to offer us as the house person, not
    to coin Las Vegas too much, but this is a way that the local
    economy can make money by bringing trains in from all over the
    country to be tested at a manufacturing facility right here in
    this country instead of relying on vehicles right now that are
    made in Spain, that are made in France, that are made in
    Canada. Let's do it here, is what we are saying.
        Mr. Moulton. I thank you----
        Mr. Huffman. Thanks so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Moulton. I thank the gentleman, and we are now going to
    go to Massachusetts where my colleague, Mr. Auchincloss, has
    been a great addition to the community. Mr. Washington, you
    were earlier talking about changing Los Angeles Union Station
    from a terminal into a station by making through tracks. That
    is a project that we've been trying to do here in Massachusetts
    to connect our two stations in Boston that are only a mile
    apart but have always been disconnected.
        Doing so would finally complete the Northeast Corridor from
    Virginia to Maine. And it is a project that was originally
    delayed by the onset of World War I. So we talk about the
    consequences of not investing in rail over the past century.
    There is a great example. In that intervening time, we have
    literally built two entire highways in that short space, in
    that short span. We built a highway in the 1960s. We tore it
    down and built another highway since then. Those stations still
    remain disconnected. Mr. Auchincloss, over to you.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Moulton. I have been
    enjoying this hearing a great deal because high-speed rail is
    at the intersection of really three critical issues for my
    district and my home State. One is housing affordability. Sixty
    percent of extremely low-income individuals in Massachusetts
    are paying more than half their incomes on rent. And home
    prices in Massachusetts are skyrocketing up 11 percent since
    2019.
        We have got a huge congestion crisis. Pre-COVID, it was
    very bad. And unfortunately it is coming back as the economy
    reopens. The average driver in Greater Boston is spending more
    than $2,000 a year on the cost of congestion. And of course we
    have got a climate crisis. And the transportation sector in
    Massachusetts accounts for about 40 percent of our net carbon
    emissions in the State.
        And high-speed rail can be a part of resolving all three of
    those crises, in conjunction with other transportation policies
    like Complete Streets and mobility as a service and investing
    in buses. And for that reason, I've been and will continue to
    be a strong supporter of my colleague, Mr. Moulton's, high-
    speed rail vision, which has really been a substantive and, I
    think, compelling vision for how we can do high-speed rail as a
    country.
        But the challenges that we have had, of course, have been
    how to pay for this effectively and how to overcome issues with
    land-use entitlements and regulation that can obstruct it along
    the way. And there are a couple of different approaches to that
    in the form of national infrastructure banks that have been
    circulating around Congress.
        There is one version in Financial Services Committee, on
    which I sit, another led by Chairwoman DeLauro. And they all
    have slightly different takes. But overall, they take public-
    sector money to then leverage private-sector investments. They
    politically insulate decisions about how to invest in
    strategically important national infrastructure projects.
        And they work with State infrastructure banks to provide
    them the technocracy and tools that they need to make good
    investments as well. And so high-speed rail to me sounds like a
    great example of where a national infrastructure bank could be
    very helpful. And I would like to ask Mr. Porcari as well as
    Mr. Kunz, who represents one of the public- and private-sector
    dimensions that might both be at the table in a national
    infrastructure bank, to discuss if you were in the room as we
    were chartering this institution and it was going to be
    investing in high-speed rail, what would you feel like you
    needed to have guaranteed and part of the charter and of the
    way that the national infrastructure bank would operate in
    order to be confident that we could be investing in high-speed
    rail and getting it built on time and under budget. And Mr.
    Porcari, maybe you could start.
        Mr. Porcari. Congressman, it is an excellent question. In
    addition to the characteristics of the national infrastructure
    bank that you described, I would say, above all, consistency
    and predictability. One of the downfalls of the public-private
    partnerships that we've had in the U.S. is every one is
    bespoke. We don't have kind of a standardized template.
        As a consequence, you can't price the political risk of
    that kind of partnership in America. If we look to our
    neighbors to the north in Canada, U.K., Australia and other
    countries, while not perfect, where they've used those kinds of
    public-private partnerships, it is a much more tightly defined
    system where the community and elected officials obviously have
    input early and often, but there is also an endpoint to that
    where you have some certainty, and the financial markets
    understand that certainty.
        Mr. Auchincloss. I think political risk is a very good way
    to put that. Thank you. And Mr. Kunz?
        Mr. Kunz. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I think
    you are on the right track there. We do need a structure where
    there is substantial funding available to the tune of several
    hundred billion dollars. We need to be focusing on key projects
    and getting them to completion, not spreading the money all
    over the country.
        And then we need to enact structures to run the system so
    that you can have private competition on them. You leverage the
    value capture that the station areas create, feed that back
    into some of the funding sources and also setting up coalitions
    to work with the local communities as these systems are
    developed: where the stations go, where the routes go, those
    kinds of things.
        So it is really a comprehensive program. And like I said,
    prioritizing the important projects to make the case and get
    those to completion so that the public can ride them and see
    them, and then that really opens up sort of the floodgates for
    the rest of the country.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Reducing political risk and
    prioritization. I want to, in any balance of time that I have,
    also allow Ms. Eckert to weigh in here as well because we need
    to make sure that unions are at the table for these projects as
    well.
        Ms. Eckert. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Moulton. Ten seconds so try to be----
        Ms. Eckert. Ten seconds. Oh. I just wanted to just add that
    new and novel technologies should also be covered under the
    Railway Labor Act and therefore those workers the--labor
    standards to the workforce that they have had for the last
    century.
        Mr. Moulton. All right. Thank you for being so concise, and
    I thank my colleague and friend from Massachusetts. And we are
    now going to go down to Georgia for Mr. Johnson. You have 5
    minutes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this
    is a very important hearing, and it is apt that you, Mr. Chair,
    are sitting in the chair for part of this meeting. I support
    the Seth Moulton high-speed rail plan and also support the
    American High-Speed Rail Act. And you have been a real
    champion. And I want to commend you for that.
        Mr. Kunz, thank you for being here today. It is a pleasure
    to hear from the U.S. High Speed Rail Association on the need
    for a bold transformative investment in high-speed rail in
    America, a network. And there has been some hesitancy
    surrounding high-speed rail that comes from concern about the
    lack of capital.
        Your testimony talks about the importance of establishing a
    high-speed rail development agency within the Department of
    Transportation as well as a rail trust fund to provide the
    capital needed to build out an HSR network. What is your
    response to those who find the vision of an American high-speed
    rail network too expensive to make, and they think that the
    investment would not be worthwhile? What is your response?
        Mr. Kunz. Well, thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    We really just have to have the vision. We have to look at what
    these systems have done for the rest of the world and then look
    at America and how we are struggling with congestion and
    climate and energy--foreign oil dependency and all the problems
    we have that are all slowly dragging our country down.
        And so by investing in high-speed rail with a big vision,
    bold funding, and really aggressively building these projects,
    we can see these massive transformations take place all across
    our country. Everybody can participate in this and benefit from
    it. And so like I said, this isn't fantasy. This is proven out
    all over the world to deliver all the things that we say that
    it will deliver. And it is based on, like I said, seeing it
    happen in these nations.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. Before we had one highway
    running through the Nation, we had a rail network. And it has
    been said that it was rail that opened up America. Can you
    comment on the fact that America has not kept up with its rail
    investment over the centuries and how it has left us in an
    uncompetitive posture in relation to other countries around the
    world?
        Mr. Kunz. I thank you for that. I think the biggest thing
    is that people need to realize that highways and aviation are
    actually low-volume modes of transportation. So we are trying
    to put too many people through those systems. And it is
    causing, basically, a hardening of our arteries of our entire
    Nation. So by having high-speed rail, it opens up sort of the
    floodgates of our economic development, our mobility, and
    everything so that it makes us more efficient as a Nation,
    makes each company more efficient that operates within the
    Nation.
        And again, if we don't keep up with China and Europe and
    the rest of the world, they leave us in the dust when it comes
    to global competitiveness because we are taking so long to get
    anywhere. It costs us so much to do anything versus other
    countries that can get to three meetings in a day and be back
    to their office and just have super-efficient countries,
    basically, when you have these.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah. There have been so many
    locations around the Nation that have been left out of economic
    development. So equity, not just in urban communities but in
    rural communities, how can we enhance the economic prospects of
    people in rural areas through high-speed rail?
        Mr. Kunz. See, that is one of the beauties of high-speed
    rail, is that in a corridor--let's say, for example, between
    San Francisco and Los Angeles, it is not just like the way
    aviation only would make economic development in the two
    endpoints. High-speed rail connects all the cities in between.
    And they are now connected into that entire megaregion of
    economic development.
        So the Central Valley--perfect example--is a place that had
    very high unemployment, very depressed economic conditions. And
    it will now be connected into both economies of California, the
    northern San Francisco economy and the southern Los Angeles
    economy. And those exact same things will happen in corridors
    all over the country because these have stops in between. Not
    every single train stops at every station every hour, but they
    will have access into the system so that people can get jobs
    and opportunities.
        And it works in both directions. The economic development
    also comes to their towns because of the access. So companies
    can locate back-office operations there. People can, you know,
    move more things to these other cities that you wouldn't
    normally go to----
        Mr. Moulton. I want to thank the----
        Mr. Kunz [continuing]. Because they are too far.
        Mr. Moulton. I want to thank the gentleman for his time.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        Mr. Moulton. Time has expired.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, sir. You know, one of the
    example corridors I often like to talk about is Chicago to
    Atlanta because most Americans don't think that those cities
    are close enough for a high-speed rail. It is about the same
    distance as Beijing to Shanghai, which is one of the most
    popular high-speed rail corridors in the world.
        But of course it would do so much for all the economies in
    between Chicago and Atlanta if you built that out, which is
    something that just expanding highways or airports wouldn't be
    able to do. So thank you very much for the question. And I now
    want to welcome Congresswoman Johnson from Texas. Thank you so
    much for joining the subcommittee hearing this afternoon. You
    have 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much and let me
    thank you for conducting this hearing. To me, it is clear that
    the development of a high-speed rail system not only in my
    State of Texas but across this great Nation would provide
    tremendous economic and environmental benefits while
    simultaneously decreasing traffic congestion in America's
    cities and metropolitan areas.
        According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, the
    cost of congestion has already increased by nearly 50 percent
    from the previous decade and further estimates forecast that
    national congestion costs will continue to escalate in the
    coming years from $179 billion in 2017 to $237 billion by 2025,
    an increase of 32 percent.
        For my State, a high-speed rail system between Texas'
    largest metropolitan areas would greatly improve travel between
    large engines of economic opportunity and growth as well as
    offer a desperately needed option to the often busy and
    congested trip between Dallas and Houston by highway. So I
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to participate today
    in this important discussion, and I yield back. But I reserve
    for questions to the witnesses on the number 2 panel. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Moulton. And I thank the gentlelady. It has been a
    pleasure to chair this committee hearing. But I have not done
    it without error because I mistakenly skipped over Mr. Garcia
    from Illinois, who is up next.
        Mr. Garcia, you have 5 minutes and my apologies. Over to
    you.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. No apologies needed. Thank you,
    Chairman Moulton and Ranking Member Crawford, for pulling this
    hearing together. High-speed rail, whether it is wheel and
    steel or maglev technology, holds significant promise in the
    U.S. Future connectivity, development, you name it, but the
    fact is we are still dragging our feet, not just on
    implementation of new technologies but even in how we operate
    what we already have. As many of you know, I hail from Chicago,
    the modern-day birthplace of the labor movement.
        I represent a lot of working-class, blue-collar families
    who quite literally keep our trains running. That is why fellow
    Chicagoland Representative Schakowsky and I are introducing
    legislation to ensure railroad employee unemployment benefits
    don't get subjected to sequestration and cuts as the market
    ebbs and flows.
        We want to make sure these hard-working men and women who
    keep our trains running have all the rights and protections
    that they deserve. That is why I think it is absolutely
    critical that any new form of railroad--high-speed wheel on
    steel or maglev, hyperloop--you name it--are classified as
    ``rail carriers.'' Ms. Eckert, what kind of ramifications would
    railroad workers face if new types of railroads were not
    classified as ``rail carriers''? Would those workers lose out
    on benefits that currently rail carrier employees have?
        Ms. Eckert. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes.
    So railroad workers covered under the RLA do benefit from the
    Railroad Retirement Act. But also, we have not faced the same
    wage stagnation as the rest of the country. And that is due to
    the high union density of railroad workforce. Comparatively
    speaking, studies have been done that typically the wages of a
    peer group for a workforce that is not unionized is about 11.2
    percent. But we can identify a peer group by contracting out of
    work that we typically have done on specifically mechanical
    work.
        And then with that data set, we could see that people
    performing duties similar to us or even the same duties as us
    but not covered under the RLA make about $16,900 less than we
    do a year. So in areas like where I come from, $16,900 is a lot
    of money. And also, you are not guaranteed the same retirement
    benefits as you would if you were covered by the Railroad
    Retirement Act.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great point. So given today's
    testimonies, I want to take a step back and ask a broader
    question about what are the key obstacles our country still
    faces in terms of making high-speed rail a reality. Mr.
    Porcari, based on your years in the industry and at the
    Department of Transportation, what, in your estimation, are the
    key obstacles keeping us from making high-speed rail a reality
    in this country?
        Mr. Porcari. Congressman, thanks. It is a great question
    and one we need to think big. We need to, as I have mentioned
    before, level the playing field so that jurisdictions
    throughout the country can make the choices that make sense to
    them. And I am confident that high-speed rail and higher speed
    rail, among other train choices, would be something that is
    supported by local jurisdictions if there was some funding
    parity in it.
        We also need to really fully load the cost of the
    transportation system we have now--its environmental impacts,
    its safety and life safety impacts--and think about a safer,
    more environmentally friendly mode of transportation. It is a
    genuine alternative for both urban and rural areas. And that
    really is a rail system, something you don't build in a day.
    But if you have the confidence that it is going to be a long-
    term effort and be supported, something you can do just as we
    have done with our aviation and highway system.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And that question is for
    Mr. Kunz, obstacles and how do we make it a reality in the U.S.
    Mr. Kunz, are you there? Mr. Kunz? If you are not there, I am
    going to yield back to the chair.
        Mr. Moulton. We seem to have lost Mr. Kunz for a minute,
    but I want to thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Garcia, are you going to yield--are you going to yield
    back?
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Yes, I yield back to you, sir.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman very
    much for his questions and for all the members of this panel
    for participating. We have learned a lot. And I know we opened
    this panel with a critique from my colleague, the ranking
    member, of California high-speed rail. It reminds me that just
    10 years ago when I was at Harvard Business School, I did an
    indepth financial analysis of California high-speed rail. And
    we came to some interesting key conclusions. One, the project
    was going to cost more than they were saying at the time. And
    of course that has been proven true. And it has certainly had
    its fair share of missteps and poor leadership along the way.
        I think things are in much better hands now. But another
    conclusion we reached is that even at a much higher price tag,
    it still costs a lot less than expanding airports and highways
    to meet 2050 demand. But when we talk about that capacity
    piece, the fact that one high-speed rail line has the capacity
    of 6 to 10--some people even estimate 12--highway lanes, the
    other conclusion we showed is that in 2050, while the
    expansions that you would have to do to airports and highways
    to meet demand would just get you there, if you build high-
    speed rail instead, you would be able to go much beyond 2050 to
    meet future demand as well. When we talk about this
    generational opportunity to invest in infrastructure with the
    American Jobs Plan, I think it is critical that we not squander
    this generational opportunity by investing only in the last
    generation's infrastructure. So I have learned a lot from this
    panel, and I want to thank everybody who has participated. We
    are now going to go into a short recess before the next panel.
    If you would all please rejoin us in just about 5 minutes, the
    subcommittee shall stand in recess subject to the call of
    Chairman Payne.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Payne [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I now call panel 2 and I ask the witnesses on the panel to
    please turn on their cameras and keep them on for the duration
    of the panel.
        I would now like to welcome the witnesses on our second
    panel, Mr. Carlos Aguilar, president and chief executive
    officer of Texas Central high-speed rail; Mr. William Flynn,
    Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak; Mr. Josh Geigel, chief
    executive officer and cofounder of Virgin Hyperloop; Mr. Andres
    de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop Transportation
    Technologies; Mr. Michael Reininger, chief executive officer of
    Brightline Trains; and Mr. Wayne Rogers, chairman and chief
    executive officer of Northeast Maglev.
        Thank you for each of you being here today and I look
    forward to hearing your testimony.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record. And, as with the previous panel, since
    your written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
    committee will request that you limit your oral testimony to 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      TESTIMONY OF CARLOS AGUILAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
       OFFICER, TEXAS CENTRAL; WILLIAM J. FLYNN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
    OFFICER, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK); JOSH
         GIEGEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND COFOUNDER, VIRGIN
     HYPERLOOP; ANDRES de LEON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HYPERLOOP
       TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES; P. MICHAEL REININGER, CHIEF
       EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRIGHTLINE HOLDINGS, LLC; AND WAYNE L.
    ROGERS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NORTHEAST MAGLEV,
                                  LLC

        Mr. Payne. You are on mute.
        Mr. Aguilar. Chair Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members
    of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today to
    share our vision on high-speed transportation. My name is
    Carlos Aguilar, CEO of Texas Central, the most shovel-ready
    rail project in the United States today. Texas Central is a
    transformational project. We will link the fourth and fifth
    largest metro areas in the country separated by 240 miles,
    which is right in the sweet spot of high-speed rail.
        These are the only two metro areas in the United States
    that grew by over 1 million people each between 2010 and 2020.
    Most travel between them is on I-45, a congested road with the
    highest fatality rate per mile of any highway in the country.
    We need solutions and we need them now.
        Texas Central is a traveler safety program. We will save at
    least 800 lives during the life of the project, moving
    passengers to our train and taking thousands of cars off the
    road. Our technology has transported over 10 billion passengers
    without a single accident or fatality.
        Texas Central is a jobs program, generating over 17,000
    craft jobs in Texas and 20,000 supply chain jobs across 37 U.S.
    States. At the core of this is the Business Workforce
    Opportunity Program, our version of Build Back Better, created
    3 years ago to develop small rural minority-, women-, veteran-,
    and disabled individual-owned businesses. Every contract we
    sign sets specific inclusion targets, the highest ever
    attempted in heavy construction in the United States.
        Texas Central is a climate change program. It will
    eliminate over 8 million tons of CO2 emissions during its
    lifetime, the equivalent of shutting down seven large
    powerplants for a full year, reducing air pollution near roads
    that impact communities of color most. We will also use less
    land. In fact, our 205-mile-per-hour train requires 28 times
    less than a new highway.
        Texas Central is a global competitiveness program, to
    leapfrog past China and other countries in high-speed
    transportation by bringing the safest, most efficient rail
    technology to America today. At the same time, we will support
    American suppliers to build a new industry, injecting over $12
    billion into American jobs and products. For example, we will
    buy 1,100 miles of rail and a total of over 1 million tons of
    American steel.
        Texas Central is focused on all Texans, connecting two
    vibrant metro areas but also bolstering rural communities by
    creating high-paying jobs, expanding first responder and
    healthcare capabilities, and providing new services such as
    broadband internet.
        Our investors have contributed $700 million so far, with no
    Federal or State money. Funds from 22 Texan families looking to
    leave a positive legacy for the State, other American
    investors, and our close ally Japan. This has paid for the
    permitting and derisking of the project. We have obtained major
    regulatory approvals, completed ridership studies, advanced
    engineering, and attracted expert companies to execute the
    works and operate the system. We have secured the station sites
    and other land for the project. This is why we are ready to get
    shovels in the ground, to help transform American
    transportation and to fulfill the promise of high-tech jobs for
    the new economy.
        The direct cost of construction will be $24 billion. Total
    cost will depend on funding sources, interest rates, risk
    premiums and other factors. The funding plan includes
    participation of banks from Japan, Italy, and Spain, alongside
    potential support from U.S. DOT, which we aim to secure.
        At Texas Central, we are honored to have bipartisan support
    of mayors, legislators, and other elected officials, including
    Houston mayor Sylvester Turner, Dallas mayor Eric Johnson, and
    Fort Worth mayor Betsy Price, to name a few. Without the vision
    and strong bipartisan support of leaders like Congresswoman
    Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman
    Colin Allred, and Congressman Seth Moulton on this committee,
    this project would not be ready to go today.
        On behalf of the entire Texas Central team, I would like to
    thank this committee for its efforts to assist projects like us
    in accessing the RRIF program and other high-speed rail
    initiatives. We look forward to working closely with all of
    you, the U.S. DOT, and the Federal Railroad Administration to
    make this a reality. Thank you very much.
        [Mr. Aguilar's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief Executive
                             Officer, Texas Central
                                  Introduction
        Chair Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share with you the
    transformational potential of high-speed rail in general, and the
    benefits of our own train project being developed in Texas.
        US Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently
    said:

              ``The U.S. shouldn't be too proud to learn from other
            countries, especially now that we're out of the top 10 [ranked
            countries for infrastructure], I always want to see the U.S.
            No. 1.
              ``The U.S. shouldn't fall behind its competitors or its
            allies, like Japan, Spain and China, countries with impressive
            high-speed train systems, which `can't come soon enough' to the
            U.S.''

        We agree, and, Texas Central is doing precisely that.
        We live in a moment of tremendous challenges, from the threat of
    Climate Change, to unprecedented sudden unemployment and economic
    distress created by the pandemic, to competition from rising powers
    that seek to beat the United States technologically and economically.
    Great moments of challenge call for bold leadership and vision. High-
    speed rail, and the Texas Central project in particular, offer this
    Committee and this Nation an opportunity to show such leadership and
    vision.
        We went around the world and have brought the best home to Texas,
    so that OURS will be the best high-speed rail system in North America
    and serve as a showcase and catalyst for other regions throughout the
    country. This 21st Century transportation system will transform
    mobility between Houston and North Texas, and we are ready to plant the
    seed of this high-tech industry in the US which will allow our country
    to lead in high-speed rail technology and LEAPFROG the early lead of
    CHINA and other major powers in this critical industry. After years of
    effort, we can now proudly say that we are ready to go.
        We propose to make this project of national and regional
    significance a WIN-WIN opportunity for our country on multiple fronts.
        WIN on SAFETY and EFFICIENCY,
        WIN on JOBS and ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS,
        WIN on ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE and ECONOMIC EQUITY,
        WIN on CLIMATE CHANGE.
        1.  WIN on SAFETY: We will save lives in one of our most congested
    and growing inter-urban corridors. Today, I-45 is the highway with the
    highest fatality rates in the country per Popular Mechanics and other
    surveys. We will take 15,000 cars of the road on year one, avoid over
    100,000 crashes through 2100, thereby preventing at least 800 road
    fatalities.
        2.  WIN on JOBS and ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS: Investments in this
    innovative project will spur economic growth not only in Texas but
    across the United States. It will lead to direct job creation and
    career opportunities in construction, material production and supply
    chain, and the operations and maintenance of the system. It is an
    investment that will spark the creation of a new high-tech industry in
    the U.S. It is an investment that will determine our ability to compete
    globally against nations that have committed to developing 21st Century
    transportation systems.
        3.  WIN on JUSTICE: We will contribute to address environmental,
    social, and economic justice:
          a.  We will bring diversity and opportunity: For three years we
    have been working with the cities of Dallas and Houston, as well as
    with communities along the alignment to produce our Business Workforce
    Opportunity Program (BWOP), our version of Build Back Better. The
    result is the most ambitious inclusion of small, rural, minority,
    women, veteran, and disabled individual-owned businesses ever attempted
    in a heavy construction project in US history. As a result, we have set
    specific targets for our scope, which has been defined and finalized.
    ALL of these targets are now included in all Texas Central contracts
    that we have agreed and signed. On average, 34% of the construction
    content will go to BWOP companies, and 24% of design project management
    and other services, will go to BWOP professionals and firms.
          b.  We will bring services to rural areas, like our colleagues in
    Spain have done with Broadband and internet access. We will improve
    many other services as well and provide over 25% of our jobs in rural
    counties.
        4.  WIN on CLIMATE CHANGE: We will improve our environment by
    eliminating over 8 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2100, which is
    equivalent to the yearly emissions of seven modern 500MW Gas-fired
    electricity plants today.
          a.  Texas Central high-speed trains will go through non-
    attainment counties, which require reduction in greenhouse gasses. As
    we reduce those, we will contribute to less premature deaths due to air
    pollution (5000/yr in the case of Houston alone).

        After $700 MILLION dollars of private investment to de-risk this
    project, we have achieved all major permitting and engineering
    milestones needed to begin construction--all that is needed is for the
    members of this Committee and for the Administration to say the word
    and work with us to transform American transportation, restore American
    leadership in large scale infrastructure, and fulfill the promise of
    high-tech green jobs for the new economy.
        Texas Central has, over many years, competed and recruited the best
    of the best expert companies from around the United States, and the
    whole World and we are proud and excited to present to your
    consideration, a high-speed rail project that is ready to break ground
    the second financing is finalized. This 21st Century transportation
    solution will connect two of America's largest regions, Houston and
    North Texas, in under 90 minutes at 205 miles per hour, utilizing the
    service-proven Japanese Tokaido Shinkansen system, the gold standard of
    high-speed rail worldwide. In their 56-year history, Shinkansen trains
    have had zero operational fatalities and their on-time performance is
    within seconds per-train per-year. Americans deserve the BEST in rail
    technology, and that's what this project offers. It will create jobs
    and spur economic development, thanks to years of considerable effort
    and thorough analysis by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
    which completed key regulatory processes, including the Record of
    Decision.
        This world-class transportation solution addresses congestion,
    safety and the efficient movement of people and goods between two of
    America's largest megaregions in the nation's 2nd most populous state.
    In fact, these two megaregions, Greater Houston and North Texas,
    collectively produce 6% of US GDP, and contain close to 50% of Texas'
    population and 5% of our national population. Connecting these cities
    via high-speed train will provide a much-needed regional mobility
    choice and solution to a corridor that is growing more congested,
    dangerous and unreliable as each new day passes.
        Today, there are no direct passenger train options for travelers
    between these population centers, which means the 16 million direct
    journeys that are already happening annually are by airplane or
    automobile. Meanwhile, the size of this travel market is expected to
    grow at 1.5% per year until 2050, almost twice the national average,
    resulting in a total population of just under 20 million journeys in
    2022 and just over 34 million journeys in 2050. Already, about 90
    percent of travelers make this journey by car. If you are not familiar
    with this area of the country, the stretch of highway that connects
    these two megaregions is infamous. Interstate-45 between Houston and
    Dallas consistently ranks as one of the deadliest highways in the
    country. In 2019, the National Safety Council ranked I-45 #1 on its
    list of Most Dangerous Highways in the US, with 56.5 fatal accidents
    for every 100 miles of roadway. This is unacceptable and it is one of
    the principal reasons that Texans are demanding better, safer
    transportation choices and options.
                          Building a Culture of Safety
        Now, contrast the currently available options for millions of
    travelers every year with the impeccable safety record of the
    Shinkansen system over its entire 56-year history. It has moved over 10
    BILLION people without a single operational accident or fatality. On
    time performance is also the best of any comparable system in the
    world. You will get to your destination within a minute of timetable
    schedule every time, every day. Americans deserve to have the best
    high-speed rail system in the world, and that is what this project
    offers.
        Like the Shinkansen system, Texas Central's system is being
    designed with safety and efficiency, at the heart of every decision.
    Because of this CULTURE of safety and ``purpose-built infrastructure'',
    Texas Central will be able to achieve these outstanding and proven
    safety and reliability milestones. For instance, Texas Central tracks
    are completely grade separated, which means trains will cross over or
    under all public roads, and the right-of-way is equipped with intrusion
    prevention and detection capabilities to eliminate the risk of trains
    interacting with cars or other equipment. We have also designed our
    track to be over 50% on viaduct to lessen impact on landowners and
    ensure all existing public roads stay open.
        To ensure that Texas Central replicates the safety-critical
    elements of the Tokaido Shinkansen, in 2020 the FRA published a Final
    Rule of Particular Applicability that establishes a comprehensive set
    of safety standards for the design, operation and maintenance of the
    Texas Central high-speed rail system, providing regulatory certainty
    and minimizing project risks.
     A Job Creator and Economic Catalyst with Bipartisan Political Support
        At Texas Central, we are very proud and humbled to have earned the
    support of mayors, legislators and other elected officials from all
    over the state and nation, including Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner,
    Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, just to name a
    few. And, without the strong bipartisan support of leaders in congress
    like Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congressman Colin Allred and
    Congressman Seth Moulton on this Committee as well as Congresswoman Kay
    Granger this project would not be ready to go today. Their hard work
    and support have been critical to the continued success of the project.
        The Texas High-Speed Train not only enjoys strong support across
    the US on local, state and national levels, it also has geopolitical
    importance. The project has secured development capital investment from
    Japan, 22 Texan families looking to leave a positive legacy for the
    State and the country, as well as other American investors. All of this
    has paid for the permitting and de-risking of the project, without any
    state or federal funding. We also expect significant participation of
    banks from Japan, Italy and Spain, apart from the possibility of
    accessing federal financing. These countries represent important
    partners in this project and have extensive high-speed rail networks of
    their own that allow them to inject significant experience and
    knowledge into the project. Texas Central is bringing together the
    world's high-speed rail expertise right here in the US. Moreover, there
    is MUCH AMERICAN expertise in high-speed rail all around the world and
    we are bringing many of these experts home to TEXAS.
        While we are delighted to have worldwide support for the project,
    Texas Central is an American company and we are committed to employing
    US manufacturers and suppliers. We expect to inject more than $12
    billion into labor and product costs to build the system, including
    utilizing 1,100 miles of steel rail, 600,000 tons of rebar and other
    steel products totaling more than 1 million tons of steel altogether
    supplied by US Steel manufacturers, spending $7.3 billion on
    procurement costs, and employing localized suppliers all along the 240-
    mile route. This project provides a unique economic opportunity for the
    nation that will create jobs, plant the seeds of a new industry in the
    US and help jumpstart the state and national economy by infusing
    billions of dollars into US industries.
        While the goal was always to build the nation's first high-speed
    train, it just turned out that Texas--specifically Houston to North
    Texas--was the ideal spot for a train that could be commercially
    successful. We looked at over 90 different pairs of cities in the
    United States, and Houston to North Texas came out on top. There are
    many reasons why.
        First of all, that 240-mile stretch between Houston and North Texas
    is in the sweet spot of ``too far to drive, too short to fly.'' It's
    also relatively flat, with less than 500 feet of elevation change--no
    mountains, no tunnels, no major engineering challenges. It's largely
    undeveloped in between, and you can connect roughly 16 million people
    between those two economic centers. Simply looking at this project from
    an economic perspective, Texas makes the most sense, both on the cost
    and ridership side.
        The Texas High-Speed Train project is a job creator. More than
    17,000 good paying and high skilled construction jobs on average for a
    sustained period of five years, 20,000+ US supply chain jobs from many
    zip codes in 37 US states that we have received quotes from, and more
    than 1,500 permanent jobs once in operations. An estimated 25% of these
    job opportunities will be concentrated in rural areas, helping to boost
    rural economies and bring high-paying, high-tech jobs to these
    underserved areas. The project will also create many more thousands of
    permanent jobs in supporting industries.
        To build the system, we anticipate a cost of $24 billion for direct
    construction of the alignment, three stations, system equipment and
    installation. Total cost will depend on funding sources interest rates,
    risk premiums, and other factors, but we expect significant private and
    international investment.
        We would like to thank this committee for its efforts in passing
    H.R. 2 to assist projects like Texas Central to access the Railroad
    Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program and other potential
    high-speed rail initiatives. We are committed to working with the
    Committee as it finalizes surface transportation reauthorization
    legislation. We believe the private sector has a role to play and we
    are ready to implement this project as an example of what the private
    sector can accomplish.
                    A Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
        Texas Central is a company that values and cultivates a diverse and
    inclusive workforce. At the core of this commitment is our Business and
    Workforce Opportunity Program (BWOP), created with a mission to
    recognize the value and development of small-, rural-, minority-,
    woman-, veteran- and disabled individual-owned businesses by offering
    fair and competitive opportunities to bid and participate in building
    and operating the Texas high-speed train. The BWOP was developed in
    collaboration with our stakeholders--cities, counties, workforce
    boards, chambers, community colleges and universities and businesses.
    Our program also focuses on helping businesses build capacity and
    mentor protege partnerships. The goals and objectives of the program
    requirements are embedded into all Texas Central agreements.
        The program goes beyond providing opportunities to participate. The
    jobs created will require new skills to be developed through extensive
    training, new investments in workforce development and partnering with
    a supporting network of workforce boards, community colleges and
    universities, K-12, unions and employers to meet the demand. To achieve
    these goals, we are planning to set up a High-Speed Rail Center of
    Excellence and have proposed it to be housed at Texas A&M University in
    College Station and in coordination with the Texas A&M Transportation
    Institute (TTI), not far from our intermediate station in Brazos
    Valley. In addition, we will work with the Historically Black Colleges
    and Universities in Texas to provide internships and other professional
    positions. We are establishing an expert presence to attract supply
    chain companies and others to build an educational hub in Texas and
    serve the rest of the nation from there.
                             High-Speed, Low Impact
        The all-electric Texas High-Speed Train will have tremendous
    environmental benefits when compared to all alternatives. It will
    remove more than 14 million automobiles off I-45 per year, according to
    the Final Environmental Impact Statement, published in 2020 by the FRA.
    This net reduction of nitrous oxide, volatile organic compounds and
    greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to the nation's goal of
    reaching net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. High-speed rail also has a
    significantly smaller footprint than new highway construction as the
    train can move the same amount of people as a 16-lane highway while
    only using a fraction of the land. In fact, a high-speed rail line
    requires only 17 acres of land per mile to construct compared to 468
    acres per mile for a new highway.
        With its small footprint and significantly lower emissions per
    passenger mile, Texas Central will help handle Texas' growth more
    efficiently and relieve stress on the environment.
                                   Conclusion
        This major infrastructure project is a result of millions of man-
    hours of work by hundreds of engineers, environmental specialists,
    scientists, surveyors and numerous other trained professionals over the
    past decade. It includes years of close coordination with federal
    agencies (including the FRA, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and
    Wildlife Service), state and local agencies and planners, landowners
    and many other stakeholders to create a safe, structurally sound and
    solid and responsible design that takes future growth into account. We
    look forward to working closely with the Committee, the US Department
    of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration to make this
    a reality. We are ready to bring a world class high-speed rail system
    to the US, create jobs and help boost the economy as we all recover
    from the Covid-19 pandemic.
        In short, we are ready to go.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Next, we will hear from Mr. Flynn for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flynn. Good afternoon, Chairman Payne, Chairman
    DeFazio, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the
    subcommittee. I am proud to represent Amtrak's 17,000 hard-
    working employees and have the opportunity to discuss Amtrak's
    critical role in advancing high-speed rail in America.
        As America's only high-speed rail operator, Amtrak strongly
    supports development of high-speed rail in all markets where it
    makes sense. This includes in the Northeast Corridor, the NEC,
    where we stand ready to advance President Biden's vision of
    making our existing high-speed service much faster, and in new
    or existing markets which have the population levels and other
    attributes that make such services successful.
        Building high-speed rail and expanding overall intercity
    passenger operations require a strong Federal commitment and
    substantial and reliable Federal funding through a trust fund-
    like structure. This is the most important lesson we can learn
    from countries with successful high-speed networks. There is
    simply no substitute. If we funded highways the same way we
    fund intercity passenger rail today, we would still be driving
    on dirt roads.
        High-speed rail must be part of a much broader rail
    strategy. Our goal should not be to develop high-speed rail
    lines in only a few corridors which take years to yield
    benefits. We should develop a modern, efficient, trip-time
    competitive intercity passenger rail network that includes
    high-speed rail.
        Every high-speed system in the world relies on a foundation
    of high-quality, conventional intercity rail that allows
    passengers to connect to high-speed services. The development
    of such systems has generally been undertaken by the nationally
    owned railroad, to ensure effective service integration,
    economies of scale, and uniform standards.
        Amtrak is well suited for the job, created with the legal
    authority and having the fleet, the core systems, the trained
    employees, and the experience necessary for the job. We are
    transforming the Northeast Corridor into North America's only
    160-mile-per-hour operation.
        And given that high-speed rail lines take many years to
    develop and construct, an average of 16 years, according to a
    2018 European Commission study, we should start right away by
    continuing to develop the NEC and initiating conventional and
    higher speed services in the many corridors that we have
    identified for improvement or expansion in our recently
    released Amtrak Connects US vision.
        For some of the 60 corridors that we have identified, high-
    speed service should be the ultimate goal, such as corridors in
    Texas, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest. Many other corridors
    have opportunities to achieve 110 or 125 miles per hour in the
    near term, such as the Richmond-to-Raleigh segment of the
    Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor. Pursuing such a strategy
    will give us a realistic, achievable, scalable plan for a
    network of expanded intercity and high-speed passenger rail
    service throughout our Nation.
        Our Northeast Corridor operations demonstrate the success
    of this model. Our Acela service dominates in certain segments,
    such as Washington to New York. Years of investment have
    improved all levels of service and allowed high-speed trains to
    benefit from the connectivity and access provided by regular
    intercity and commuter trains. With additional investments, we
    can deliver much faster service, generating enormous economic
    benefits.
        With funding to replace ancient infrastructure on the NEC,
    such as the 148-year-old, 30-miles-per-hour B&P Tunnel south of
    Baltimore, and additional investments costing less than $50
    billion, Amtrak could significantly reduce trip times. For
    example, a trip between Washington and New York City would take
    only 2 hours. Washington to Baltimore would take just 21
    minutes.
        Investments like these would create thousands of jobs,
    enable faster and more frequent commuter rail service, and
    contribute directly to the fight against climate change. Taking
    an Amtrak train on the all-electric NEC produces 83 percent
    fewer greenhouse gas emissions than driving, and 73 percent
    fewer than flying.
        Our Nation needs a comprehensive network of high-quality,
    intercity passenger rail service that includes high-speed rail,
    and Amtrak is ready to deliver that--deliver that in
    partnership with the Federal Government, States, and private
    entities such as Texas Central and Brightline. If intercity
    rail is going to meaningfully contribute to the President's
    goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by
    2030, and help create the expanded mobility, greater economic
    opportunity, and enhanced equity we desire, we need a broad
    program anchored by a Federal commitment and dedicated funding.
        Thank you for your time and your support, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Flynn's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of William J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer,
                National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
                                  Introduction
        Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members
    of this Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this
    hearing on behalf of Amtrak. My name is William Flynn, and I am
    Amtrak's Chief Executive Officer.
        I am particularly honored to be representing Amtrak at this
    hearing. It takes place six days after President Biden traveled to
    Philadelphia to join us in celebrating Amtrak's fiftieth anniversary.
    The American Jobs Plan he has proposed, which would provide $80 billion
    for Amtrak and high-speed and intercity passenger rail, is an important
    first step in developing an improved passenger rail system that would
    enhance mobility by serving more communities; provide more frequent and
    more equitable service; generate significant economic benefits; and
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
        Amtrak has accomplished a great deal since we began service on May
    1, 1971 with a mandate to transform unprofitable intercity passenger
    rail services operated by private railroads into ``a modern, efficient
    intercity railroad passenger service'' \1\--with an initial
    appropriation of only $40 million. In thinking about where Amtrak, and
    high-speed rail service in North America have come over the past half
    century, the title of today's hearing--``When Unlimited Potential Meets
    Limited Resources''--seems particularly apt.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-518, Sec.
    101.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The potential high-speed rail offered to revolutionize intercity
    travel was one of the major reasons Congress created Amtrak. The
    Metroliner, the United States' first high-speed train, had begun
    service between New York City and Washington in 1969, the year before
    the enactment of the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) that established
    Amtrak. Many members of Congress who had experienced the Metroliner
    recognized the potential high-speed rail service had to, in the words
    of the RPSA, ``provide fast and comfortable transportation between
    crowded urban areas\2\'' throughout the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            What Is High-Speed Rail?
        When most Americans hear the words ``high-speed rail,'' what comes
    to mind are sleek bullet trains racing along newly-constructed rail
    lines on elevated viaducts. People who live in countries that have
    extensive high-speed rail networks would consider that definition of
    high-speed rail too narrow. In fact, ``high-speed rail'' encompasses
    several different types of services arranged along a continuum with
    generally fuzzy boundaries--and we need all of them in the United
    States if we are to realize high speed rail's potential.
        On one end of the continuum are the high-speed bullet trains, such
    as Japan's Shinkansen or the extensive network of high-speed services
    China has developed over the past 15 years that operate on dedicated,
    custom built electrified rail lines at speeds that approach or exceed
    200 mph. Their costs--both monetary and from the environmental impacts
    associated with their construction--can be justified in corridors with
    high travel volumes that are anchored by large cities; where existing
    rail lines are at capacity; where the distances are too long for
    anything other than very high speed service to be trip time competitive
    with flying; and/or where topographical characteristics such as
    mountains or other factors make it infeasible to significantly increase
    speeds on conventional rail lines. Los Angeles to Northern California
    is the perfect example of this, which is why we need to build
    California High Speed Rail.
        Next are high-speed corridors like Amtrak's Boston-to-Washington
    Northeast Corridor (NEC) or Great Britain's West Coast Main Line
    connecting London and Glasgow, where frequent high-speed trains
    operating at maximum speeds of 125 to 160 mph share electrified tracks
    with conventional intercity, commuter and freight trains. Both the NEC
    and the West Coast Main Line have high train densities and passenger
    volumes that have reached the point where development of dedicated
    high-speed rail lines over portions of their routes is necessary to
    accommodate growing demand, and also to make rail more competitive with
    air travel for trips between their endpoint cities, which are
    approximately 400 miles apart. In the U.K., this has taken the form of
    the roughly $135 billion HS2 program, a series of newly-built,
    dedicated 225 mph lines that will interface with existing high-speed
    and conventional lines now under construction to connect London, the
    Midlands and Northern Britain.
        The German system--Europe's largest in terms of annual passengers--
    perhaps best represents the strategy of incremental development of
    high-speed rail. Starting with an extensive conventional network and a
    significant freight rail sector in place, Germany has strategically
    developed 186 mph or higher high-speed segments to speed up certain
    city pair and international routes, while investing in conventional
    routes to bring them up to 100 to 155 mph standards, to achieve overall
    trip times which are competitive with driving and flying. Thus, out of
    Deutsche Bahn's roughly 21,000-mile network, only approximately 1,300
    miles operate at speeds above 155 mph as of 2018, yet the network
    serves as the primary mode of intercity travel for many. To put this in
    perspective, Germany is roughly half the size of Texas but has a total
    network of equal size to Amtrak's that provided 151 million intercity
    trips in 2019.
        While some definitions of high-speed rail use a higher threshold,
    the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA)
    defines ``high-speed rail'' as ``intercity passenger rail service that
    is reasonably expected to reach speeds of 110 mph.'' \3\ Corridors with
    maximum speeds of 110 mph, four of which Amtrak operates, can offer
    faster trip times than driving and be very competitive with flying.
    Importantly, they can be developed at a much lower cost than faster
    corridors in markets where passenger demand would not justify the major
    capital investments, such as electrification and elimination of grade
    crossings, that are generally required to operate trains at higher
    speeds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 49 U.S.C. 26106(b)(4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In nearly every nation, conventional rail service is the foundation
    for the development of successful high-speed rail service. Improvement
    or initiation of conventional rail service can occur much more quickly
    than construction of new high-speed rail lines, and can set the stage
    for high-speed rail service by building a ready market and existing
    passenger ridership that high-speed rail can tap when it arrives.
    Conventional rail service also feeds high-speed rail, providing
    connecting passengers and allowing high-speed services to be extended
    over conventional speed lines to extend the reach of high-speed trunk
    lines.
                                 The Path Ahead
        Instead of asking how we can develop high-speed rail lines, what we
    should be asking is how--to paraphrase Amtrak's initial and current
    statutory goals--we can develop a modern, efficient, trip time
    competitive intercity passenger rail network throughout the United
    States that includes high-speed rail. If we focus myopically on the
    development of dedicated high-speed rail lines, or on new technologies
    that share most of their characteristics, we will not tap intercity
    passenger rail's potential in the many locations around the nation
    where it can play a meaningful role. And we will continue to make
    little progress in addressing climate change on a national scale, as we
    will leave most of the country waiting at the station for the decades
    it typically takes to develop even one new high-speed line. For
    example, the UK's HS2, for which planning began in earnest in 2012, is
    not set to begin operation on its initial segment until as late as
    2030, with the full project not expected to be complete until 2040. We
    also cannot ignore the fact that we already have a high-speed railroad
    in the United States--the NEC between Washington and Boston--on which
    relatively modest investments could yield large improvements in trip
    times, ridership, economic impacts and reduced greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        Much of the NEC's success is due to factors that do not exist at
    similar levels anywhere else in the United States, particularly its
    very high population density along a linear corridor anchored by the
    country's largest city and extensive network of conventional rail,
    commuter and transit services that predates the development of high-
    speed rail. However, that does not mean that the NEC is the only U.S.
    corridor well suited for high-speed rail service. Rather, it helps to
    illustrate, as a prototype, the sorts of conditions that corridors in
    the U.S. will likely need to be successful--robust public transit
    connectivity, high-density land-use, significant populations, high
    driving and parking costs, significant congestion on other modes,
    economic agglomeration, and so forth.
        So, while Amtrak strongly supports development of new high-speed
    corridors, we can't focus only on the dream of funding and constructing
    a large number of them from scratch, which is not going to happen soon
    enough to meet the near term need for more passenger rail service, or
    take a chance that new technologies will eventually prove viable. The
    urgent economic and mobility needs of the nation require a more
    holistic approach that focuses on quickly improving and expanding our
    conventional network to serve more people and places with reliable
    service, completing the two high speed corridors already under
    development--the NEC and California High-Speed Rail--and launching
    select additional corridors with the right attributes for high-speed
    development.
        Such an approach, which focuses on creating reasonable alternatives
    to high-carbon transportation modes in the near term, is essential to
    addressing climate change. As the Committee knows, the transportation
    sector accounts for the largest share--nearly 30%--of greenhouse gas
    emissions in the United States. The ambitious environmental goals the
    Biden Administration has proposed--particularly the 50% reduction in
    greenhouse gases by 2030--cannot be realized if the only options for
    most intercity trips continue to be driving or flying. With new high-
    speed lines taking, on average, 16 years to progress from the start of
    construction to operation in Europe according to a 2018 report by the
    European Union's European Court of Auditors,\4\ the United States
    simply does not have the time to wait on high-speed rail alone to
    increase intercity passenger rail use in America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-
    rail-19-2018/en/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   High Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor
        Turning the Boston-to-Washington NEC into North America's only
    high-speed railroad is perhaps Amtrak's biggest accomplishment. When we
    acquired the NEC on April 1, 1976, it was literally falling apart.
    Metroliners bounced over bumpy tracks at reduced speeds; commuter rail
    service was in a downward spiral; and extensive slow orders due to lack
    of maintenance by the NEC's owner, the bankrupt Penn Central, could
    have curtailed rail service were it not for an emergency appropriation
    in 1975 that kept trains running until Amtrak took over.
        Over the next five years, Amtrak rebuilt the NEC with funds
    provided by the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program (NECIP),
    reducing trip times, and ultimately increasing maximum speeds to 125
    mph. In 2000, funding appropriated for the Northeast High-Speed Rail
    Improvement Project (NHRIP) allowed us to extend electrification from
    New Haven to Boston and increase maximum speeds to 150 mph on that
    segment. Shortly thereafter, we introduced the high-speed Acela
    trainsets that have been the flagship of our NEC services for the
    ensuing two decades. Their popularity has led to widespread usage of
    the term ``Acela Corridor'' to describe the megaregion they serve: a
    densely populated corridor that accounts for 17% of the U.S. population
    and 20% of the gross domestic product on which the NEC is the artery
    that provides mobility and drives the economy.
        As a result of these investments, the NEC is a very different rail
    line today than it was in 1976. It is the busiest railroad corridor in
    the Western Hemisphere, hosting (pre-COVID) 2,000 passenger trains
    carrying approximately 820,000 commuter and Amtrak passengers each
    weekday, along with approximately 60 freight trains a day. Amtrak
    passengers made 17.1 million trips on the NEC in FY 2019, accounting
    for over half of our total ridership. Today, the high speeds between
    Washington and New York City are 135 miles per hour and will soon rise
    to 160 miles per hour, as will maximum speeds between New Haven and
    Boston. High-speed crossovers and bidirectional signals allow trains to
    weave efficient paths across the railroad, Positive Train Control
    protects operations, and trains achieve high levels of on-time
    performance far surpassing those on the rest of the Amtrak system.
        Improved and higher speed service in the NEC has had a dramatic
    effect on Amtrak's competitiveness with airlines. As shown below, from
    2000 to 2019 Amtrak's share of the air-rail market between New York
    City and Washington increased from 37% to 78%. Amtrak's market share
    between New York City and Boston nearly tripled, increasing from 20% to
    54%. Amtrak's NEC ridership has, of course, decreased markedly during
    the pandemic: March ridership was down 76% from FY 2019 levels.
    However, our share of the air-rail market has actually increased since
    the pandemic began. That trend is likely to continue if, as many
    observers expect, airline service in short-distance markets is not
    restored to pre-COVID-19 levels.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Despite COVID-19, we are continuing to make major improvements in
    our NEC high-speed rail services.
          The opening of the Moynihan Train Hall at New York City's
    Penn Station at the end of last year has transformed our station
    facility in that city, which contributes nearly half of our nationwide
    ticket revenues, from a crowded subterranean chamber of daily commuter
    horrors into a spacious, modern, world-class station that is at last
    worthy of the great city it serves. Moynihan Train Hall gives new
    meaning to the phrase from last to first.
          The 28 next generation Acela trainsets that will soon
    begin entering revenue service will expand the Acela fleet by 40% and
    increase the number of seats per train by 25%. They will operate at
    higher speeds--a maximum of 160 mph--while offering improved ride
    quality, increased reliability, and modern contactless features. The
    new Acela trainsets have already provided large benefits to our
    nation's economy because they were bought in America: 95% of their
    components were produced in the United States by 250 suppliers in 27
    states.
          We have just selected a preferred bidder to produce 83
    Intercity Trainsets: dual mode trains capable of operating at 125 mph
    under electric power and continuing under diesel power to destinations
    beyond the NEC without the need for time consuming engine changes. They
    will replace the 45-year-old Amfleet I cars operated on our Northeast
    Regional trains and will also operate on many of our state-supported
    corridor routes.
          Completion of the New Jersey High-Speed Rail Improvement
    Program, which is replacing the electric traction infrastructure and
    overhead catenary wires installed in the 1930s, and upgrading track and
    signals, on a 24-mile stretch of the NEC between Trenton and New
    Brunswick, New Jersey, will allow the new Acela trainsets to operate
    over that segment at a maximum speed of 160 mph.

        Because the NEC is a shared use facility, capital investments in
    the NEC have also provided major benefits to the commuter rail riders
    who account for over 90% of NEC rail travelers. The near doubling in
    the number of commuter trains operating over the NEC from 1976 when
    Amtrak acquired it to 2019, particularly the enormous expansion of New
    Jersey Transit service and the increase in trains between Washington
    and Baltimore on the MARC Penn Line from two to 31 round trips each
    weekday, would not have been possible without the investments the
    federal government has made to provide expanded capacity, increased
    reliability and higher speeds.
                            The Green Way to Travel
        The history of Amtrak's ownership of the NEC demonstrates that,
    when Congress has provided funding to improve high-speed rail service,
    we have used it well on transformative projects that have produced
    enormous benefits. Importantly, those investments have led millions of
    passengers who would otherwise have driven or flown to take the train,
    making a major contribution to our environment.
        Passenger rail service is the green way to travel, particularly on
    electrified rail lines like the NEC. We hear a lot of talk about other
    transportation modes adopting stretch goals to reduce their emissions,
    such as producing only electric cars by 2035. On Amtrak's NEC, we are
    already there. Since we completed electrification to Boston in the
    early 2000s, all Amtrak trains operating between Washington and Boston
    have utilized electric power. As a result, traveling on an Amtrak NEC
    train produces 83% fewer emissions than driving, and 73% fewer
    emissions than flying. About a third of the NEC's electric traction
    power is hydroelectric power generated in Safe Harbor, Pennsylvania
    along the Susquehanna River.
                  High-Speed Rail on Amtrak's National Network
        The Acela trains account for only part of Amtrak's high-speed
    operations. Northeast Regional trains, Keystone Service trains and
    other state-supported trains operate over the NEC at a maximum speed of
    125 mph. Passengers riding those trains between the NEC and
    destinations on state-supported routes travel at that speed for a
    portion of their trips, reducing their trip time. Long distance trains
    destined for Chicago, New Orleans, Georgia, and Florida travel over the
    NEC at a maximum speed of 110 mph.
        On four of the corridors on our National Network, all of which are
    operated, maintained, and owned in whole or part by Amtrak, we operate
    state-supported services which reach the 110 miles-per hour threshold
    for high-speed rail under the PRIIA definition. All these corridors
    benefited from improvements funded under the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009 and/or the 2009 and 2010 Transportation
    Appropriations Acts that provided over $10 billion in funding for high-
    speed and intercity passenger rail development.
          On the Amtrak-owned Keystone Corridor between
    Philadelphia and Harrisburg, the initial phase of the Keystone Corridor
    Improvement Project (KCIP), a partnership between Amtrak and the
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania completed in 2006, restored electrified
    service, increased maximum speeds to 110 mph, increased service
    frequency and extended most trains from Philadelphia to New York City.
    The result: 91% ridership growth from 2006 to 2019. The KCIP project's
    success, made possible because of Amtrak's ownership of the corridor
    and its ability to mobilize its workforce to complete the project in a
    relatively short time, has been cited in studies published in the
    Harvard Business Review and the Mineta Institute as a model for cost-
    efficient improvements in existing intercity passenger rail services.
    With additional investments, maximum speeds on the Keystone Corridor,
    the only electrified Amtrak route other than the NEC, could be
    increased to 125 mph.
          On the 96-mile Amtrak-owned portion of the Michigan Line
    between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan that forms part of the
    Wolverine route between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac, speeds were
    increased to 110 mph in 2012 following the installation of the
    Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), one of the
    first successful positive train control systems outside of the NEC.
    When, following completion of improvements constructed by Amtrak,
    speeds are increased on the 135-mile segment of the Michigan Line
    between Kalamazoo and the Detroit area that Michigan acquired in 2013,
    trains will be able to operate at 110 mph on approximately 160 of the
    231 miles of the Michigan Line owned by Amtrak and Michigan.
          Track and signal improvements on the 61-mile Amtrak-owned
    Springfield Line between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts
    allowed speeds to be increased to 110 mph in 2018, and provided
    additional capacity that enabled Amtrak service to increase from six to
    nine weekday round trips and the initiation of CTrail commuter rail
    service.
          Trains also operate at a maximum speed of 110 miles per
    hour on the 79-mile portion of the Amtrak-leased, and partly Amtrak-
    owned, New York City-Albany/Schenectady Empire Corridor between
    Poughkeepsie and Schenectady.

        When you add up all the trains described above, over half of
    Amtrak's trains operate at a maximum speed of 100 mph or more over at
    least a portion of their route.
        Amtrak is also working with Union Pacific Railroad, the Illinois
    Department of Transportation, and the Federal Railroad Administration
    (FRA) to increase maximum speeds between Joliet and East St. Louis,
    Illinois on the Chicago to St. Louis Lincoln Service route. We are
    seeking FRA approval of recently completed testing for 90 mph
    operations, which we hope to implement within the next few months.
    Thereafter, additional testing will be conducted to obtain FRA approval
    for 110 mph operations, which could commence within a year.
          Why Doesn't the U.S. Have More or Faster High-Speed Trains?
        One of the questions Amtrak is often asked is why the United States
    does not have faster or more high-speed trains like most European
    countries in corridors where that would make sense. The answer is
    simple: money. Unlike these countries, the United States has chosen to
    primarily invest in highways and aviation rather than rail.
        From the mid-1930s, when lightweight streamlined trains were
    introduced, until 1959, the United States had the fastest trains in the
    world. Passenger trains serving corridors like Chicago to Minneapolis,
    some pulled by steam locomotives, operated at speeds of 90-100 mph.
    They offered frequent service, with trip times that would be
    competitive even with today's driving times, on rail lines shared with
    freight trains.
        In the 1950s that began to change. As European countries and Japan
    started investing in improved and higher speed passenger rail service,
    the United States opted instead to build interstate highways and
    airports. The federal government's decision to invest in cars and
    planes rather than passenger rail contributed significantly to the
    precipitous decline in intercity passenger rail service that resulted
    in the creation of Amtrak.
        Today, the 150 miles per hour maximum speed on Acela trains places
    the United States 18th in the world when countries are ranked based on
    their fastest trains. You get what you pay for--and in the United
    States the vast majority of federal transportation funding has gone to
    highways.
        In recent years, an increasing share of highway funding has come
    directly from taxpayers rather than from highway users. As everyone
    familiar with federal transportation funding knows, failure to raise
    the federal gas tax since 1994 caused the Highway Trust Fund to become
    insolvent in 2008. Since then, the federal government has appropriated
    over $157 billion to bail it out: nearly three times as much money, in
    just over a decade, as Amtrak has received over its entire 50-year
    existence.
        By contrast, since 2010, the only federal funding available for
    developing or improving intercity and high-speed passenger rail, other
    than Amtrak's annual appropriation, has been small grants under several
    competitive matching grant programs such as the Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI) and the
    Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
    (RAISE) program (formerly known as BUILD and TIGER). The total funding
    appropriated for competitive grant programs for which passenger rail is
    eligible would not make a dent in the cost of constructing even a
    single high-speed rail line. Most of those programs are not limited to
    intercity passenger rail, and over the last four years highway projects
    have received the majority of the funding from programs for which they
    are eligible.
        If highways were funded in the same way we fund passenger rail,
    we'd still be driving on dirt roads. If we are going to have improved
    intercity and high-speed rail in the United States, Congress must
    provide adequate, consistent, and reliable funding as it does through
    trust funds earmarked for other transportation modes.
      What Do Successful High-Speed Rail Systems Around the World Have in
                                    Common?
        While international high-speed rail systems differ in many
    respects, an examination of the way successful systems have been
    developed reveals five nearly universal commonalities.
        First, the national governments in all these countries have
    provided significant, consistent, and predictable funding for the
    development and construction of high-speed rail lines over an extended
    period.
        Second, nearly all these countries have followed an incremental
    approach to expanding high-speed rail service. They began by upgrading
    existing conventional speed rail lines for higher speeds; progressed to
    building dedicated high-speed rail segments along portions of routes;
    and over time extended their dedicated high-speed rail network along
    lengthy corridors on heavily traveled routes. The major exception is
    Japan, whose narrow-gauge rail lines through mountainous regions could
    not be upgraded for higher speeds. Even today, most European high-speed
    trains continue to share tracks with conventional rail services over at
    least portions of their routes, particularly in terminal areas in major
    cities.
        Third, high-speed rail service in these countries does not exist in
    a vacuum. Rather, it is integrated with conventional speed intercity
    passenger rail service, often operating over the same tracks or as
    extensions of high-speed rail services, and seamlessly connected to
    regional rail, commuter rail and rail transit services, as well as
    airports.
        Fourth, countries that have rapidly developed high-speed rail
    systems--most notably China--do not have environmental laws like those
    in the United States, or the same protections for private property
    owners' rights. That allows high-speed rail lines to be built more
    quickly and at lesser expense. Six years of ultimately unsuccessful
    environmental litigation delayed construction of Brightline's yet-to-
    be-completed line Miami to Orlando Airport line, which was originally
    projected to begin operations in 2015. Environmental requirements, and
    the challenges of purchasing or condemning thousands of properties to
    create a new right-of-way, are major reasons the initial segment of
    California High Speed Rail is now projected to begin service more than
    two decades after voters approved funding for it. No one would suggest
    getting rid of our environmental and property rights laws, but any
    realistic projection of the time required to build high-speed lines if
    funding suddenly became available must take those laws into account.
        Finally, in nearly all the countries that have built successful
    high-speed rail systems, a national passenger rail operator has played
    a leading, and in most cases the lead, role in planning and developing
    high-speed rail service. Examples include SNCF in France, Deutsche Bahn
    in Germany, Renfe in Spain, and JNR in Japan. In order to build a high-
    speed railroad, you need people with experience in planning,
    constructing, maintaining and operating high-speed rail lines, and you
    want to leverage this capacity so that you can support several projects
    efficiently, learning valuable lessons as development progresses. In
    most countries (including the United States), most of those people work
    for the national passenger railroad, and this core capacity is utilized
    to drive network development.
            What Can We Do to Transform High-Speed Rail on the NEC?
        The biggest challenge we face in improving existing high-speed rail
    service on the NEC is, of course, the age, condition, and capacity of
    key infrastructure assets, such as bridges, tunnels, and electric
    traction systems. The good news is that most of those assets were built
    to last 100 years. The bad news is that many of them are now more than
    100 years old. They must be replaced or rebuilt just to maintain
    existing service levels. Historical federal funding levels have been
    insufficient to address the NEC's State of Good Repair backlog, let
    alone make the investments required to increase speeds and track
    capacity for improved high-speed rail service.
        The most important factor in achieving higher speeds on a rail
    route is not the maximum speed at which trains are able to operate, but
    rather minimizing places where trains must go slow. In many places
    along the NEC, all trains must operate at very slow speeds on
    infrastructure not capable of accommodating faster operations. The most
    prominent example is the curving, water-laden, 150-year-old Baltimore &
    Potomac (B&P) Tunnel just south of Amtrak's Baltimore station, through
    which trains crawl at 30 mph. The longest slow stretch is the 57-mile
    Metro-North Railroad segment of the NEC between New Rochelle, New York
    and New Haven, on which the maximum speed is only 80 mph. Slow speeds
    on the Metro-North segment are the major reason that Acela trip time
    between New York City and Boston is 51 minutes longer than between New
    York City and Washington, even though the distances are nearly
    identical and the maximum speed between New York City and Boston (150
    mph) is faster than the 135 mph maximum between New York City and
    Washington.
        It also does no good to have an Acela train race up the Northeast
    Corridor from Washington at a maximum speed of 135, or soon 160, miles
    per hour, only to come to a dead halt four miles from its New York City
    destination because trains in both directions are sharing the one
    single-track tunnel under the Hudson River while the other undergoes
    stopgap repairs. The additional time that must be added to schedules to
    account for the likelihood of infrastructure-related delays affects on-
    time performance and necessitates longer scheduled trip times.
        Fortunately, we have an opportunity to address this problem. With
    realistically achievable levels of federal funding for essential state-
    of-good repair investments and additional investments to increase
    speeds, we can significantly reduce trip times and improve existing NEC
    high-speed-rail service.
        Amtrak has identified investments, collectively projected to cost
    approximately $50 billion, that would enable Acela trains to operate at
    160 mph on approximately 333 of the 457 miles between Washington and
    Boston and increase maximum speeds on the Metro-North segment to 125
    mph. This would reduce trip times on express Acela trains to
    approximately two hours between New York City and Washington and two
    hours and 30 minutes between New York City and Boston.
        Travel time between Washington and Boston would decrease by a full
    two hours, making Amtrak service much more competitive with flying.
    These investments would also provide additional capacity that, in
    addition to enabling Amtrak to increase Acela service frequency to
    every half hour, would also benefit other Amtrak and commuter rail
    services.
        The key infrastructure investments to increase speeds and capacity
    that could be accomplished if this level of funding were made available
    include:
          Realigning curves, upgrading tracks and signals, and
    installing constant-tension catenary where it is not presently in
    place;
          Minor bridge replacements, platform reconstruction and
    interlocking reconfigurations where required for higher speeds or to
    facilitate increases in service frequency;
          Installation of additional track to provide a continuous
    four-to-six-track railroad along the Metro-North segment and a minimum
    of three tracks on the state-owned/Amtrak-operated portion of the NEC
    in Massachusetts;
          Construction of a new dedicated high-speed segment
    between Newport and Edgemoor, Delaware (Delaware New Segment); and
          Construction of a new high-speed segment on new right-of-
    way between New Haven and Providence (Connecticut New Segment).

        The projected costs of these improvements, and the trip time
    reductions they would produce, are shown in the table below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         SECTION->                             WAS-NYP             NYP-BOS                NEC
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Total
                           Phase                         HSR Trip    Cost    HSR Trip  Cost ($B)  HSR Trip    Cost
                                                           Times     ($B)      Times               Times*     ($B)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current NEC........................................      2:49                3:40                 6:29
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NEC HSR Program....................................      2:00     $12.0      2:28     $36.3       4:28     $48.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     *Full Corridor Trip Times exclude New York City station dwell

        The Connecticut New Segment accounts for $29.5 billion of the $36.3
    billion projected cost of the New York City to Boston improvements.
    Amtrak's plan assumes it would run primarily within the Interstate 95
    right-of-way and include a new station in New London. While the
    projected trip time improvements attributable to construction of the
    new segment assumed its maximum speed would be 160 miles-per-hour,
    approximately 38 miles could support up to 186 mph operations, which
    could produce additional trip time reductions.
        The projected $12 billion cost of the Washington to New York City
    improvements does not include the cost of four not yet funded State of
    Good Repair projects: replacement of the B&P Tunnel and of the
    Susquehanna, Gunpowder and Bush River Bridges in Maryland. While some
    of these projects, particularly the B&P Tunnel replacement, would
    increase speeds and contribute to the projected trip time reductions,
    replacement of these assets is necessary for reasons unrelated to speed
    limitations.
        What is most significant about these investments is the not the
    higher maximum speeds they would allow on hundreds of miles of track,
    but rather that they would increase average speeds to 113 mph between
    New York and Washington and 94 mph between New York and Boston, both in
    the same range as many European high-speed rail services. These
    investments could be constructed incrementally as funding and track
    time for construction became available, providing immediate benefits
    before completion of the entire project.
       Going Further: Investments to Achieve Below Two-Hour New York to
                             Washington Trip Times
        When President Biden spoke at our 50th anniversary celebration last
    Friday, he said that Amtrak's vision shouldn't be limited to reducing
    trip time from New York to Washington to two hours. Instead, he
    believes that our goal should be to operate 220 miles per hour trains
    with a trip time of 90 minutes.
        Additional funding beyond the $50 billion scope described above
    would advance this goal by allowing Amtrak to begin constructing
    dedicated high-speed rail tracks on new alignments. The Selected
    Alternative in the NEC Future Plan discussed below includes the
    construction of five new segments, in addition to the Delaware New
    Segment included in Amtrak's proposed investments, between Washington
    and New York City. They are:
          Bayview (Baltimore) to Newark, Delaware
          Philadelphia International Airport
          Baldwin, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia
          Philadelphia to Bridesburg, Pennsylvania
          North Brunswick to Secaucus, New Jersey

        The new segments would be designed for 220 mph operation. While
    they would be connected to the existing NEC tracks at endpoints, the
    new segments would be located almost entirely outside of the existing
    NEC right-of-way. This means that their construction would have little
    impact on current NEC operations, allowing it to proceed in tandem with
    upgrading of existing NEC tracks that requires track outages that must
    be limited in order to avoid severe disruptions and delays to train
    operations.
        Trains could begin utilizing each new segment as it was completed.
    Once a significant portion of the new segment mileage has been
    constructed, additional high-speed trainsets capable of higher speed
    operation could be acquired and the maximum speed on the new segments
    increased to 220 mph, equivalent to the fastest high-speed lines around
    the world.
             Amtrak's Proposed Investments and the NEC Future Plan
        In 2017, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a more
    than five-year, comprehensive planning and Tier I assessment of
    environmental impacts known as NEC Future that defined, evaluated, and
    prioritized future investments in the NEC. All the investments Amtrak
    has identified above are included within the Selected Alternative the
    FRA chose in the Record of Decision. (The Selected Alternative includes
    additional capacity between New Haven and Providence but does not
    specify how it will be provided pending further study.)
        In addition to establishing a prioritized plan for future
    investments, NEC Future's Record of Decision also provides programmatic
    level (Tier 1) environmental clearances. This will enable projects
    included in the Selected Alternative to proceed directly to site-
    specific, project-level environmental reviews, greatly shortening the
    environmental review process compared to corridors for which corridor-
    wide programmatic environmental analyses have not yet taken place.
        Amtrak is aware of proposals to discard the Selective Alternative
    that FRA has chosen for the route of New York City to Boston service,
    which is along the existing NEC right-of-way except for the New Haven-
    to-Providence segment, in favor of an alternative route across Long
    Island (the Long Island Alignment) that FRA considered and rejected
    because of its significant negative environmental and community
    impacts. The rejected Long Island Alignment would, among other things,
    require the construction of new tunnels under the East River; building
    a new high-speed rail line from Long Island City to Ronkonkoma, New
    York through densely populated urban communities; the construction of a
    long, deep tunnel under the environmentally fragile Long Island Sound;
    and construction of a new high-speed rail line through communities
    between Hartford and Boston. Needless to say, the environmental and
    impacts and enormous costs of this alternative make it highly unlikely
    that it would ever be constructed even if it had been selected. Giving
    it further consideration would serve no purpose other than to delay
    commencement of urgently improvements on the Metro-North segment
    between New Rochelle, New York and New Haven, the slowest portion of
    the NEC.
     What Is Amtrak's Role in Advancing High-Speed Rail Outside of the NEC?
        When Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to revitalize passenger rail
    service, a major component of its vision was that Amtrak would develop
    expanded and higher speed passenger rail service. A half century later,
    only a small part of that vision has been realized. The main reason, as
    I noted above, is money. However, a lack of national direction and
    stable leadership in developing and advancing a plan for a national
    network of connected intercity and high-speed rail routes has also
    played a role.
        It is time to return to Congress's original vision of having Amtrak
    play a lead role in the development of expanded intercity and high-
    speed rail service--and this time provide the funding to enable that to
    happen. Amtrak brings a great deal of value to the table. Amtrak is the
    operator of the only high-speed rail service in the United States
    today, and the only U.S. company that has maintained and constructed
    operational high-speed rail lines. We have more than 45 years of
    experience in complying with the unique U.S. safety regulations for
    high-speed rail track and equipment. The majority of our approximately
    17,000 employees are involved, directly or indirectly, in the operation
    of high-speed rail services, including most of our train and engine
    employees (conductors and engineers). Many of these employees have
    unique skills not possessed by other U.S. workers in areas such as
    construction and maintenance of electric traction infrastructure and
    planning high-speed rail operations and equipment acquisition. We are
    also the only U.S. company with high-speed rail training programs.
        Amtrak also possesses unique access rights, administered by the
    Surface Transportation Board (STB), over all other freight and
    passenger rail carriers' rail lines and other facilities. While very
    high-speed rail services may require dedicated tracks, frequent,
    higher-speed passenger rail services are compatible with freight
    operations and are an essential component of any high-speed rail
    development effort to avoid the extraordinary costs and environmental
    impacts of building new, dedicated high-speed rail lines where they are
    not necessary. Amtrak trains on the NEC operate up to 150, soon to be
    160 miles per hour on tracks shared with freight trains, and freight
    trains operate over nearly all of the Amtrak rail lines elsewhere on
    which the maximum passenger train speed is 110 mph.
        Given the high expense of high-speed rail infrastructure, which on
    average was found to cost $30 million per kilometer (excluding more
    expensive tunneling projects) with more recent projects exceeding $48
    million per kilometer in Europe by the 2018 European Union audit,
    maximizing the utility of the conventional network and focusing new
    alignment, high-speed segment construction on the highest impact, most-
    critical segments is imperative to properly conserve financial
    resources.
        There are many different ways for Amtrak to participate in and
    bring value to proposed high-speed rail services like those whose
    representatives are also appearing before you today.
          Amtrak was part of one of the international teams that
    bid to be the Early Train Operator for California High-Speed Rail.
          We have consulting and joint ticketing agreements with
    Texas Central. The joint ticketing agreement will allow passengers to
    make reservations through Amtrak's website, app and other distribution
    channels for trips involving travel on both Amtrak trains and Texas
    Central's planned high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston, and
    provide seamless connections between the Amtrak and Texas Central
    stations.
          We have also recently entered into an agreement with the
    Commonwealth of Virginia under which we will contribute capital funding
    to Virginia's planned upgrades along the fast-growing Washington-to-
    Richmond segment of the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor This will
    allow significant increases in Amtrak service frequency and set the
    stage for extension of Amtrak service over a newly constructed,
    dedicated high-speed rail line between Petersburg, Virginia and
    Raleigh.

        We would welcome the opportunity to develop a joint-ticketing
    agreement with Brightline, whose proposed extension from the Orlando
    Airport to Disney World would operate along the same rail corridor as
    Amtrak's New York-to-Miami Silver Service long-distance trains, with
    which it could connect. However, existing federal law creates a major
    impediment to establishing connections between Amtrak trains and
    railroads like Brightline that the STB deems to be ``intrastate.''
    Those railroads are not subject to the STB's jurisdiction, and
    therefore do not have to pay Railroad Retirement or Railroad
    Unemployment Taxes for their employees, as long as they do not connect
    with Amtrak.
        Discouraging connections between other passenger railroads and
    Amtrak's National Network makes no sense. Nor does treating some
    passenger railroads that operate over the interstate rail network, seek
    federal grants, and utilize federal tax advantaged financing
    differently from the rest of the railroad industry makes no sense.
    Congress should eliminate this loophole to encourage connectivity and
    create a level playing field for all passenger rail operators.
    Likewise, federal laws should be amended to ensure that foreign rail
    operators, most of which are government-owned, that wish to operate
    high-speed rail or other passenger rail services in the United States
    are allowed to do so only if their countries extend the same right, on
    equal terms, to American railroads.
        Finally, if the federal government is going to invest in private
    developers of high-speed rail systems, Amtrak, as the federally-owned
    intercity rail operator, should be the vehicle for this investment.
    Amtrak, with five decades of marketing and sales experience, is ready
    to help validate high-speed rail development schemes and ridership and
    revenue estimates, assist with planning and design for infrastructure
    and operations, invest in projects and form joint ventures, provide
    experienced union labor, and ensure that new lines or segments are
    properly integrated into Amtrak's National Network so that these
    investments create value far beyond the project limits.
        Amtrak Connects US Provides a Blueprint for Near Term Expansion
        The Amtrak Connects US proposal that Amtrak has recently unveiled
    \5\ sets the stage for improvement of intercity passenger rail service
    throughout the United States--not just along a few isolated corridors.
    The product of nearly three years of planning and consultation with
    stakeholders, Amtrak Connects US embodies a carefully considered vision
    for expanded and improved intercity passenger rail service. By adding
    up to 30 plus new routes and increasing service on up to 20 plus
    existing routes over the next 15 years, it would attract 20 million
    more riders annually.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/vision/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Amtrak Connects US would bring new or additional passenger rail
    service to 47 of the 50 largest urban areas. It would provide Amtrak
    services with multiple daily frequencies to 15 states that lack such
    service today, including many of the largest, fastest growing and most
    diverse states such as Florida, Texas, and Georgia. The only Amtrak
    service these 15 states currently receive is provided by trains that
    run just once a day, and in many cases pass through the state in the
    middle of the night.
        Amtrak Connects US presents numerous opportunities for additional
    federal investments, and for partnering with states, cities and
    proposed non-Amtrak high-speed rail services that do advance. It is a
    realistic, achievable, and scalable plan that can be developed
    incrementally, and incorporate high-/higher-speed service where demand
    warrants and funding permits. Many of the routes it identifies for new
    or expanded service, including Portland to Vancouver, British Columbia;
    Miami to Tampa; Chicago to Indianapolis; Petersburg, Virginia to
    Raleigh; New York City to Scranton; and Los Angeles to Phoenix have
    segments that would be good candidates for near term 110 mile-per-hour
    service.
        The importance of having a plan shaped by vision but not fantasy is
    underscored by the history of the federally-designated High-Speed Rail
    Network. In 1991, Congress directed the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (USDOT) to designate corridors on which trains were
    reasonably expected to reach speeds of 90 mph or more that would be
    eligible for authorized federal high-speed rail funding. Since then,
    Congress and USDOT have designated 9,200 miles of high-speed rail
    corridors in addition to the NEC. However, the funding required to
    develop high-speed rail on these corridors has never been appropriated.
    Thirty years later, trains operate at 90 mph or higher on only 277 of
    those 9,200 miles. More than a third--3,413 miles--of the federally-
    designated high-speed network is served only by Long Distance trains,
    and 1,500 miles have no intercity passenger rail service at all.
     New Technologies Are Not a Substitute for High-Speed and Conventional
                                 Passenger Rail
        While new technologies like Maglev and Hyperloop may capture the
    public imagination, they are not a substitute for high-speed and
    intercity passenger rail. They would serve only a small niche of the
    intercity travel market at a much higher cost--both financially and
    environmentally.
        Maglev is not really a new technology. The first high-speed Maglev
    carrying revenue passengers opened in Germany in 1984, and a 19-mile
    Maglev line serving Shanghai's airport has operated in China since
    2003. However, countries that have considered building a Maglev
    system--China, Japan and Germany--have opted to build high-speed rail
    lines instead in every case where that was a viable alternative because
    constructing a Maglev line is much more expensive than building a new
    high-speed rail line, and vastly more costly than upgrading an existing
    rail line for higher speeds.
        Construction of a Maglev line through heavily populated areas would
    also be much more environmentally disruptive than developing or
    improving high-speed rail along an existing rail corridor. Maglevs are
    also not as energy efficient as Amtrak trains. The energy consumption
    of the proposed Washington-to-Baltimore Maglev that FRA has calculated
    is twice as high per passenger mile as the energy consumed by an Amtrak
    NEC train. FRA has concluded that building that Maglev line would
    increase energy consumption by 3.0 trillion BTUs annually.
        In addition, the huge public expenditures required to construct a
    Maglev line would benefit only a small number of affluent travelers.
    Unlike passenger rail, Maglev is a point-to-point system that serves
    few or no intermediate stops and cannot share tracks with or easily
    connect with other services. Very few Amtrak NEC or MARC commuter rail
    passengers would be able to use, and even fewer could afford to use,
    the proposed Washington-Baltimore Maglev.
        Less than 3% of Amtrak's NEC passengers travel between the three
    places--Washington, Baltimore and BWI Airport--the proposed Washington-
    to-Baltimore Maglev would serve. Even for them, using Maglev would save
    only a few minutes of travel time. Maglev's projected trip time from
    Washington to Baltimore would be only 15 minutes faster than an Acela
    train today, and just six minutes faster than the projected Acela trip
    time following replacement of the B&P Tunnel and completion of the
    other investments discussed above. Based on Maglev's average fares, a
    daily commute from Washington to Baltimore that costs $16 on MARC would
    cost $120 on Maglev. For less than half the projected cost of
    constructing a Washington-Baltimore Maglev, the parallel NEC could be
    transformed into a modern four-track railroad, providing significantly
    improved capacity, reliability and speeds for both MARC and Amtrak
    passengers from all economic strata.
        Unlike Maglev, Hyperloop is a new unproven technology. No one has
    traveled in a Hyperloop, let alone at high speeds, other than company
    employees on short test tracks. If Hyperloops prove to be
    technologically feasible and safe, and are able to gain public
    acceptance, they would have the same limitations as Maglevs.
                                   Conclusion
        President Biden's American Jobs Plan is an important first step in
    developing a high-speed and conventional passenger rail system in the
    United States that would enhance mobility, generate significant
    economic benefits, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The potential
    for high-speed rail in the right markets in the United States is indeed
    unlimited--and largely untapped.
        We urge Congress to support the President's proposal; to provide
    the levels of funding Amtrak has requested in its Legislative & Grant
    Request; and to enact Amtrak's proposals for reauthorization. Most
    importantly, we urge Congress to provide adequate, assured and long-
    term funding for intercity passenger rail service, such as the trust
    funds it established decades ago for other transportation modes, and
    that has been the key to the development of high-speed rail services in
    every other nation.
        I thank you for your time today and for your support for Amtrak. I
    invite you to join with President Biden, Amtrak's employees and
    stakeholders, and me in celebrating what we have accomplished during
    our first half century, and in realizing in the years ahead Congress's
    1970 vision that Amtrak provide ``fast and comfortable transportation''
    in every region of the United States.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Flynn. We appreciate you being
    here.
        And now we will hear from Mr. Giegel for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Giegel. Thank you. Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne,
    Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Crawford, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify about the critical work we are doing to bring our
    transportation network into the 21st century. I am Josh Giegel,
    CEO and cofounder of Virgin Hyperloop, the first new mode of
    mass transportation in over 100 years.
        In the same way that highways and transcontinental railroad
    reshaped America, hyperloop would once again shrink distances
    across the country in urban and rural areas alike. In 2014, I
    cofounded this company in a garage, when hyperloop was just an
    idea on a whiteboard. By late 2016, we began construction of
    our first full system test site, DevLoop, north of Las Vegas.
    To date, we have completed over 500 tests of our system.
    Several members of this committee have visited DevLoop on
    congressional delegations, including Chairman DeFazio and
    Ranking Member Sam Graves, in addition to a number of senior
    DOT officials.
        Today, we have approximately 300 employees, and are the
    leading hyperloop company in the world, and the only company--
    the only company to have had passengers travel safely in a
    hyperloop.
        Hyperloop is a high-speed surface transportation system.
    Travel occurs within a low-pressure enclosure, equivalent to
    200,000 feet above sea level, in a vehicle pressurized to
    normal atmospheric conditions, much like a commercial aircraft.
    This, along with a proprietary magnetic levitation engine,
    allows us to reach and maintain airline speeds with
    significantly less energy than other modes of transportation.
        Not only is hyperloop fast, it's a high-capacity mass
    transit system, capable of comfortably moving people and goods
    at 670 miles per hour with 50,000 passengers per hour, per
    direction, on demand and direct to your destination, meaning no
    stops along the way. That is the equivalent of a 30-lane
    highway.
        The benefits of our system are significant. Trips that take
    hours today could take minutes, providing businesses access to
    more expensive labor and consumer markets, and providing
    individuals and families with a wider range of opportunities
    for employment, housing, healthcare, and other services. We
    achieve all of this on a fully electric system with no direct
    emissions.
        Hyperloop transportation is not just about improved
    mobility of people and freight. It means new jobs, supply
    chains, environmental and energy efficiency benefits, enhanced
    safety, and U.S. international leadership in an emerging
    technology.
        I believe it is important to bring these benefits into
    reality promptly. So we have worked with the Department of
    Transportation and several congressional committees in
    jurisdiction on the establishment of the Nontraditional and
    Emerging Transportation Technology Council, NETT Council for
    short. The NETT Council improves agency coordination on
    innovative transportation technology and has been critical to
    helping move hyperloop forward in the United States. We commend
    this committee for including its codification in the surface
    transportation bill it developed last year.
        Because of the U.S. Department of Transportation's guidance
    issued last summer that hyperloop is subject to FRA safety
    jurisdiction, legislation should make clear that hyperloop is
    eligible for funding programs on the same terms as rail
    projects. Given hyperloop's promise to transform U.S.
    transportation, additional Federal funding should be provided
    to accelerate its deployment to enhance U.S. competitiveness in
    an increasingly interconnected world. Federal funding
    supporting hyperloop is a downpayment towards a cleaner, more
    efficient transportation system, not only for the next decade
    but the next century.
        Beyond the enormous benefits I have outlined, we believe
    our narrow right-of-way profile, with lower land requirements,
    will allow us to avoid costly issues faced by other systems.
    With rapid travel speeds and efficient fleet management, we
    expect to significantly reduce operating costs. As with all
    cutting-edge technologies, we expect further cost efficiencies
    to emerge as our technology scales and matures.
        So in conclusion, we want you to know that Virgin Hyperloop
    is ready. It is no longer a question of whether hyperloop will
    happen, but where it will happen first.
        In November 2020, through our Pegasus demonstration, two
    Americans became the first human passengers in the world to
    ride a hyperloop system. And one of the things I did not
    mention in my intro is that I was one of those two Americans. I
    can personally attest to the safety of the system and the
    exciting potential that this carries to transform the way that
    people travel. It is time to build back better, smarter, safer,
    and cleaner. And hyperloop will help the country to do just
    that.
        We look forward to continuing to work with this committee,
    Congress, and the Department of Transportation as we bring our
    vision to reality.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
        [Mr. Giegel's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Josh Giegel, Chief Executive Officer and
                          Cofounder, Virgin Hyperloop
        Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking
    Member Crawford, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the exciting
    work we are doing at Virgin Hyperloop to bring the transportation
    network into the 21st Century. My name is Josh Giegel, and I serve as
    CEO of Virgin Hyperloop. In 2014, I co-founded the company when
    hyperloop was just an idea on a whiteboard in a garage. Today, we have
    approximately 300 employees and are the leading hyperloop company in
    the world. Last year we added to that leadership when we became the
    first hyperloop system to safely carry human passengers, conducting
    that test on our full-scale operational prototype facilities.
                      The Innovative Hyperloop Technology
        First, let me briefly explain hyperloop technology. The term
    ``hyperloop'' is shorthand for a high-speed surface transportation
    system utilizing magnetic levitation to move vehicles, or ``PODs'' as
    we have named them, within a low-pressure enclosure, while the POD is
    pressurized to normal atmospheric conditions--much like a commercial
    aircraft. The low-pressure environment all but eliminates aerodynamic
    drag on the vehicle, which allows a comfortable passenger experience at
    very high speeds while maintaining those speeds with significantly less
    energy than other modes of transportation. Transportation is on demand
    and direct to destination, which combined with the system's high speed,
    means dramatically reduced travel times.
                             Benefits of Hyperloop
        Hyperloop transportation could fundamentally improve the way people
    and freight move and the way communities connect--in urban and rural
    areas alike. It is in our national interest to support the continued
    advancement of this exciting industry to bring these benefits to
    reality sooner rather than later.
        Hyperloop offers the promise of many benefits: improved mobility of
    people and freight, enhanced safety, the creation of new jobs and
    supply chains, establishing U.S. international leadership in an
    emerging technology, and, very important in these times, environmental
    and energy efficiency benefits.
        Enhanced Mobility: Our hyperloop system is designed to be
    incredibly high-speed and high-capacity, capable of moving people and
    goods at up to 670 miles per hour and 50,000 passengers per hour per
    direction. Trips that take hours today could take minutes, providing
    businesses access to more extensive labor and consumer markets, and
    providing individuals and families with a wider range of opportunities
    for employment, housing, healthcare, and other services. Hyperloop
    service is designed to be on-demand and direct to destination,
    minimizing wait times common in other modes of transportation.
    Practically speaking, this would mean no long waits at a portal
    (station) for a POD's arrival or departure; no waiting at intermediate
    stops for other passengers to board or depart; and no departure delays
    due to other PODs' simultaneous use of the same portal. A hyperloop
    route could serve not just the largest cities but also smaller metro
    areas. This system is intended to combine many positive attributes from
    other systems--the speed of a plane, on-demand convenience, and the
    energy efficiency of an electric car--all while being affordable,
    comfortable, and safe.
        Safety Advantages: Safety is our top priority at Virgin Hyperloop.
    Our system is safe by its very nature. Because the PODs travel in an
    enclosed tube, hyperloop would avoid some of the greatest safety risks
    affecting rail or bus travel, including at-grade crossings and weather.
    The enclosed tube would prevent tragic pedestrian and trespasser deaths
    and injuries, as well as collisions with wildlife. Not only is
    hyperloop expected to be safer as a system, Virgin Hyperloop is
    committed to safety through multiple reviews of our technology and
    processes, not only by our world-class engineering team but also by
    independent safety experts and certifiers.
        Economic Growth and High-Tech Jobs in the U.S.: The birth of a new
    mode of transportation holds the promise of boosting economic growth by
    spurring the development of a new high-technology industry. The
    ecosystem that will develop around the hyperloop industry will help the
    U.S. build back much better through the creation of advanced and high-
    tech jobs in the manufacturing, construction, and engineering
    industries, among others.
        U.S. Leadership Internationally: Hyperloop also presents the United
    States with the opportunity to achieve international leadership in an
    emerging industry. We are a U.S.-based company creating American jobs,
    all while retaining the know-how and intellectual property within this
    country. The jobs we are creating here in the U.S. will allow our
    technology to be deployed around the world, solidifying the United
    States as the leader in and exporter of hyperloop technology.
        Superior Environmental Performance: Lastly, hyperloop can be an
    important part of the solution as we tackle the climate crisis. Our
    system is designed to be 100% electric with zero direct emissions, and
    our proprietary magnetic levitation system is energy efficient, driving
    down any indirect emissions. We believe that hyperloop will be roughly
    10 times more energy efficient than an airplane and use significantly
    less energy than other maglev systems, making it less expensive to
    operate. We are also designing our system to be energy agnostic,
    meaning we can use any type of clean energy to power our system, like
    solar, wind, or hydrogen power. Due to its high speed and capacity,
    hyperloop could also reduce roadway congestion and air pollution, for
    example, by reducing demand for auto travel. In addition, a hyperloop
    tube is anticipated to have a narrower profile than the right-of-way
    for a conventional rail track or a new highway lane, with portals
    significantly smaller than high-speed rail of equivalent throughput,
    using less land and reducing costs as well as environmental impact.
                       Virgin Hyperloop's Rapid Progress
        By late 2016, only two years after I was working out of a garage,
    we began construction on our first full-system test site, ``DevLoop'',
    which is 30 miles north of Las Vegas. In six months, we completed
    construction and began testing. To date, we have completed over 500
    tests of our system and its components. Several Members of this
    committee have visited our DevLoop test track on CODELS, including
    Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves, in addition to senior
    DOT Officials. In November 2020, through our ``Pegasus'' demonstration,
    we became the first hyperloop system to safely carry human passengers.
    As one of those human passengers, I can attest to the safety of the
    system and the exciting potential this carries to transform the way
    people travel.
        We are at a watershed moment in our development. Our team is
    passionate about hyperloop's potential to revolutionize transportation
    for the future by enhancing mobility, increasing economic opportunities
    and bringing communities and regions together--safely and in an
    environmentally responsible way.
        As we rapidly developed and began our engagement with the Federal
    government, we realized that hyperloop was perceived as not fitting
    clearly into an existing modal administration at the Department of
    Transportation. Some components of our system are similar to rail, but
    other aspects of the system, like cabin pressurization, face aircraft-
    like issues. All of the various components created the need for a one-
    stop-shop for companies like ours to engage with the Department.
        That's why we worked with the Department of Transportation and
    several Congressional Committees of jurisdiction on the establishment
    of the Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology, or NETT
    Council, in 2019. This internal DOT body improves agency coordination
    on innovative technology with multi-modal applications and has been
    critical to helping move hyperloop forward in the United States. We
    commend this Committee for including codification of the NETT Council
    in the surface transportation bill it developed last year. That remains
    a sound provision.
        Our work with this Committee, coupled with the NETT Council, led to
    the release of the ``Pathways to the Future of Transportation''
    guidance document by DOT in July 2020. That guidance provided a clearer
    regulatory framework for hyperloop.
       Furthering Continued Rapid Progress for Hyperloop Would Serve the
                               National Interest
        We have a real opportunity at this moment to Build Back Better when
    it comes to our nation's transportation system, and we can do this in
    part through a U.S.-based hyperloop company creating American jobs.
    Federal funding supporting hyperloop would be a down payment on a
    faster, cleaner, more efficient transportation system connecting
    communities in ways not possible with existing modes.
        For all these reasons, we believe funding for hyperloop is a sound
    investment. We believe our narrow right-of-way profile, ability to
    climb steeper gradients, and tighter turning radius will allow us to
    reduce or avoid issues that can be costly for other systems, including
    right-of-way and tunneling costs. We also expect that our portals will
    be significantly smaller than high-speed rail stations while achieving
    the same passenger throughput, further reducing infrastructure costs.
    As with all cutting-edge technologies, we expect further cost
    efficiencies to emerge as technology scales and matures. So, while
    project costs will always vary based on length, terrain, and other
    variables, we are always working to drive down costs in a manner
    consistent with safety.
        Further, our very high-speed capabilities and optimized fleet
    management design mean dramatically increased throughput on a route.
    This would reduce per mile costs per passenger or POD. Beyond immediate
    cost savings, greater route capacity would reduce the need to build
    additional infrastructure in the future as populations and ridership
    grow.
        As Virgin Hyperloop continues to advance in its technology
    development toward commercial operation, the Federal government can
    demonstrate support for this U.S.-based technology by ensuring this
    type of advanced technology has a chance to access Federal funding.
    This could include ensuring the eligibility of applicants to seek and
    receive funding for pilot projects that would demonstrate the
    technology, as well as commercial projects.
        Because of the U.S. DOT's guidance that hyperloop is subject to FRA
    safety jurisdiction, it is appropriate that legislation makes clear
    that hyperloop is eligible for any funding program for which rail is
    eligible, provided the application meets other requirements. This would
    be for routes of all lengths, for demonstrating the ability to provide
    passenger and/or other service, and for commercial service.
        Further, the Federal government should provide additional funding
    opportunities for such a cutting-edge means of transportation as
    hyperloop. Legislation could set aside funds for emerging technology
    developed in the United States. As the conversation continues on
    funding programs for transportation, it is important to support
    emerging and cutting-edge transportation to bring our transportation
    system into the 21st-century--as well as to increase national
    competitiveness in an increasingly interconnected and competitive
    world. The opportunity exists to provide funding for this type of
    transformational transportation as part of larger legislation without
    sacrificing other modes. We must continue to invest in our future and
    our children's future, even as we bring other systems up to a state of
    good repair.
                         Conclusion--The Bright Future
        We can have--in the near future--hyperloop, a new, more efficient,
    faster, and sustainable component of our national transportation system
    that brings communities together and opens up opportunities for all. We
    aim to create a mass-mobility experience that is available to the broad
    public. We pride ourselves on our engagement with local communities,
    working with on-the-ground partners in, alphabetically, Missouri, Ohio,
    Texas, and West Virginia, to conduct feasibility studies and explore
    future possible routes and projects.
        I have seen this company grow and our technology develop and am
    confident in hyperloop's ability to transform transportation in this
    country for the better. America has moved forward as we've moved
    faster--hyperloop is the giant leap.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before you--
    policymakers who can position the U.S. to lead the 21st-century
    transportation revolution. It's time to build back much better,
    smarter, safer, and cleaner. We are proud of the bipartisan interest
    and support we have garnered, and we look forward to continuing to work
    with this Committee, Congress, and the Department of Transportation as
    we bring our vision to reality.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Giegel.
        Next, we will hear from Mr. de Leon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. de Leon. Thank you, Chairman Payne, Chairman DeFazio,
    Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of
    the committee for the invitation to testify before you and
    share the progress that HyperloopTT has made toward realizing
    the first transportation breakthrough in over a century. Over
    the next 5 minutes, I will provide an overview of our history
    and technology, sharing insight into our Great Lakes hyperloop
    project and describe the role the United States Government can
    play to advance the adoption of commercial hyperloop systems.
        In 2013, HyperloopTT was founded in Los Angeles as the
    first company developing a hyperloop, a new mode of ultra-high-
    speed transportation with passenger, cargo, and defense
    applications. Over the past 7 years, we have been the world's
    largest hyperloop company, uniting 800 contributors, 150 full-
    time employees, and 50 corporate partners working across 40
    countries to create large-scale infrastructure innovation and
    secure over 50 patents for hyperloop operations.
        How does hyperloop work? Hyperloop technology integrates
    pressurized capsules in a near frictionless environment to
    safely and efficiently achieve airplane speeds with zero
    emissions. Our capsules will levitate over an unpowered,
    conductive track, using proprietary passive magnetic levitation
    developed at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, funded by NASA,
    and tested at full scale by General Atomics in San Diego.
    Removing steel wheel-on-rail friction and operating in a low-
    pressure environment, hyperloop travel requires significantly
    less energy than current transportation methods, reducing the
    money and time that passengers must spend to move between city
    centers. This is not a theoretical concept, but a ready-to-
    build reality.
        We are commencing our technology partnership with Hitachi
    Rail, GNB and other top leading companies on a full-scale test
    track with more than 120 [inaudible]. We are in discussions
    with infrastructure and transportation operators for
    conventional deployment, and we have released a comprehensive
    feasibility study with Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organization
    NOACA for our Great Lakes hyperloop project.
        The Great Lakes Hyperloop Feasibility Study conducted by
    independent transportation economists at TEMS found that a 468-
    mile route connecting Cleveland, Chicago, and Pittsburgh is
    profitable without Government subsidies, has a 3- to 4-year
    construction timeline, benefit-cost ratio of 2.2, and a cost of
    only $54 million per mile, significantly less CapEx than high-
    speed rail or maglev technologies. Economically, over 25 years,
    the region will experience a $74.8 billion increase in property
    value, a $47.6 billion increase in income, and a $12.7 billion
    tax base expansion, with a total development cost of about $25
    billion.
        Environmentally, the region will experience a replacement
    of 143 million tons of CO2 over 25 years, equivalent to cutting
    almost half of Cleveland's annual emissions or removing over 1
    million cars from the road every year.
        To summarize, the study found that HyperloopTT's system is
    efficient, profitable, and it is sustainable, and will
    significantly improve Americans' quality of life, including
    increasing U.S. GDP by 1 percent when deployed as a national
    network.
        Hyperloop technology is not a distraction; it is an
    opportunity. While high-speed rail and maglev technologies have
    been around for decades and solved some of the problems of
    transportation, their reliance on public subsidies and energy
    requirements of increasing speed and distance limitations
    prevent general adoption in the United States.
        Hyperloop technology is an economically viable, natural
    evolution of existing technologies. And we invite the entire
    American transportation industry to work with us in bringing
    this to the American people.
        We are requesting assistance through the Maglev Deployment
    Grant Program to advance preconstruction planning activities.
    Also, as Congress drafts transportation infrastructure
    legislation, we respectfully ask that you establish a new
    hyperloop grant program to support further R&D, feasibility
    studies, environmental analysis, and other preconstruction
    activities as a way to improve transportation and commerce
    while improving business growth and job creation across the
    country.
        Today, thousands of pieces of technology trace their origin
    to 52 years ago, when the United States invested in science and
    innovation to land an American on the Moon. With minimal
    Government investment, hyperloop has the same transformative
    potential to position the U.S. as the leader of a new era of
    sustainable transportation.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify.
        [Mr. de Leon's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Andres de Leon, Chief Executive Officer,
                     Hyperloop Transportation Technologies
        Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Graves,
    Ranking Member Crawford and Members of the Committee, for the
    invitation to testify before you and share the progress that Hyperloop
    Transportation Technologies (HyperloopTT) and our partners have made
    towards realizing the first transportation breakthrough in over a
    century and share some insights on the role of government in advancing
    this effort.
        HyperloopTT is preparing for commercial deployment of hyperloop
    systems, a new mode of safe and sustainable high-speed transportation
    that brings airplane speeds to the ground at a very competitive
    development cost of only $54 million per mile, compared to $150 or even
    $250 million per mile with other modes. Hyperloop systems work by
    levitating pressurized passenger and cargo capsules in a near-
    frictionless environment to enable energy-efficient and emission-free
    travel, reaching speeds up to 760 mph. Hyperloop technology has
    significant potential for passenger, cargo and defense applications.
        Currently optimizing our system on the only full-scale hyperloop
    test track, HyperloopTT integrates breakthrough innovations with proven
    technology to create safe next-generation travel. Efficiency is key to
    hyperloop operations. HyperloopTT capsules will levitate over an
    unpowered, conductive track using proprietary passive magnetic
    levitation developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, funded
    by NASA, tested at full-scale at General Atomics in San Diego and
    advanced for hyperloop operations by HyperloopTT engineers. Removing
    steel wheel-on-rail friction and operating in a fully enclosed low-
    pressure environment, hyperloop travel requires significantly less
    energy to reach traveling speeds than current transportation methods,
    reducing the money and time passengers must spend to move between city
    centers.
        Pioneering the first transportation breakthrough in over a century
    is not easy. To overcome large-scale infrastructure development and
    innovation challenges, HyperloopTT created a new organizational model,
    uniting an ecosystem of more than 800 expert contributors, 50 full-time
    employees, and 50 corporate partners working across 40 countries. As a
    result, HyperloopTT is a highly capital-efficient network orchestrator
    and technology creator with a low burn rate and is the subject of two
    Harvard Business School Case Studies on ``Catalyzing High Impact
    Innovation to Transform Global Transportation.'' Following our advanced
    business model, HyperloopTT will license our technologies and know-how
    developed with global industry leaders, including Hitachi Rail, TUV SUD
    and Leybold, and regional partners, like GNB in California, to
    infrastructure operators, such as Ferrovial, and transportation
    operators. This approach drastically reduces the time to market for
    hyperloop systems as it allows experienced infrastructure operators to
    manage hyperloop networks, similarly to how airports function with gate
    slots sold to specific airlines. HyperloopTT can then partner with
    established transportation operators in the airline, rail and shipping
    industries, creating systems that complement existing infrastructure to
    serve the American people best and prepare for a more equitable,
    efficient, competitive, sustainable and integrated transportation
    ecosystem.
        Currently, our Great Lakes Hyperloop project, a Public-Private
    Partnership with Cleveland MPO NOACA and over 90 regional organizations
    and institutions, connecting Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago is the
    most advanced hyperloop project in the United States. Conducted by
    independent transportation economists at TEMS, the Great Lakes
    Hyperloop Feasibility Study (GLHFS) found that a HyperloopTT system
    along the corridor would operate profitably without requiring
    government subsidies, have a 3-4 year construction timeline and a cost
    of only $54 million per mile, resulting in a remarkable Benefit/Cost
    Ratio of 2.20 with long-standing economic and environmental benefits,
    including a reduction of 143 million tons of CO2. The study projects
    that a fully connected hyperloop network throughout the U.S. could
    increase GDP by 1%.
        Economically, the study found that the region surrounding the 468-
    mile route would experience a $74.8 billion increase in property value,
    a $47.6 billion increase in income and a $12.7 billion tax base
    expansion over 25 years, with a total development cost of about $25
    billion. The cost estimate includes the infrastructure, systems,
    vehicles, stations and right of way/easements necessary to develop a
    passenger-ready commercial system and a 30% contingency.
        The independent study projects that high-value, time-sensitive
    cargo will generate 35% of the system's revenue. Allowing operators to
    charge passengers bus fare prices and see a positive return on
    investment without requiring recurring operational subsidies from the
    government.
        Environmentally, the study found that implementing a HyperloopTT
    system would replace 143 million tons of CO2 in the same 25-year
    period, equivalent to cutting Cleveland's annual emissions by almost
    half, removing over one million cars from the road every year or
    eliminating 14 billion miles driven. Additionally, the HyperloopTT
    system has the potential to generate more clean energy annually than is
    required for operation, creating a self-sufficient transportation
    system that can serve as a resilient source of renewable energy for the
    region.
        To summarize, HyperloopTT has developed a hyperloop system that is
    an efficient, economically viable and sustainable mode of
    transportation that will significantly improve the passenger experience
    and quality of life for the American people.
        The next phase of the Great Lakes Hyperloop project is the
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The system's ability to operate
    profitably without government subsidies has attracted interest from
    private companies willing to accept the business risk associated with
    building and operating a hyperloop. Still, they are less inclined to
    expose themselves to the risks associated with funding an EIS that does
    not have a finite timeline. Therefore, we are requesting government
    assistance through the Maglev Deployment Grant Program or another
    funding avenue to advance pre-construction planning activities.
        In addition to passenger-focused systems with the ability to
    transport cargo, HyperloopTT's HyperPort joint venture is pioneering a
    dedicated system for standardized shipping containers. Leveraging
    hyperloop technology and leading port automation, the HyperPort can
    efficiently increase port capacity and reliability while reducing
    congestion and emissions.
        The development of hyperloop technology is not a distraction, as
    some have called it. While high-speed rail and MagLev technologies have
    been around for decades, they have struggled for adoption in the United
    States. Hyperloop technology is the economically viable, natural
    evolution of these existing technologies. The dedicated teams at
    HyperloopTT and across the entire industry are demonstrating the short-
    term development timeline and long-term benefits of investing in
    innovative hyperloop systems that are good for the public, the
    environment and governments. The future of sustainable transportation
    is hyperloop, a reality that the traditional transportation industry is
    beginning to accept. Right now, the United States can retain its
    reputation as the breeding ground for innovation, but every day, as
    more countries look to hyperloop as a solution for modern
    transportation problems, the window grows smaller.
        The role of government in this effort is an important question.
    While we know private industry will provide financing for constructing
    and operating the system, the federal government can play a significant
    role in advancing commercialization efforts in the United States. As
    Congress continues to draft transportation and infrastructure
    legislation, we respectfully ask that you consider hyperloop and other
    new and innovative technologies. Establishing a new hyperloop grant
    program that would support further research and development,
    feasibility studies, environmental analysis and other pre-construction
    activities would go a long way to improve transportation and commerce
    while spurring business growth and job creation across the country.
        At HyperloopTT, we are inspired by the great American innovators
    that have come before us--Peter Cooper, Henry Ford, the Wright
    Brothers, and all others that have created what seemed improbable in
    their day. In our lifetime, we have not seen a new form of land-based
    transportation. With so much innovation in other areas, why has
    transportation gotten a pass? Today, thousands of pieces of technology
    that the world takes for granted can trace their origin to 52 years
    ago, when the United States invested in science and innovation to land
    an American on the moon. With minimal investment from the federal
    government, hyperloop has the same transformative potential and will
    position the United States as the global leader of a new era of
    sustainable innovation.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify. I hope you join the hyperloop
    movement and work with us to bring this innovative transportation
    technology to the American people.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. de Leon.
        And now we have Mr. Reininger for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Reininger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman [inaudible]
    subcommittee.
        Can you hear me now?
        Mr. Payne. Yes.
        Mr. Reininger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
    members of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here again,
    having last testified before you 4 years ago. Brightline was
    under construction and some of the same topics were on the
    table.
        Since our 2018 launch in Florida, we operate the only
    private high-speed system in the U.S., showcasing the potential
    of American high-speed passenger rail. We carried more than 1
    million passengers in our first full year and learned a lot
    that is worth sharing from the investment of over $4 billion
    over the last 10 years.
        From the perspective of our experience, we see multiple
    opportunities to again break free from the inertia that has
    historically restrained high-speed rail in the U.S. Along with
    the current discussion around the potential of high-speed rail,
    we also hear the voices lamenting the lack of advanced train
    systems that exist in many competing global economies. We see
    immediate ways to forge meaningful progress towards realizing
    the potential we are discussing and encourage this committee to
    enlist the private sector to multiply the effects of public-
    sector investments.
        We have developed an approach which applies American
    ingenuity to the successful models observed from around the
    world. We carefully select travel markets that are too short to
    fly and too far to drive, and where introducing passenger rail
    presents a clear consumer value proposition. Changing current
    habits requires offering a better option. We use existing road
    alignments and infrastructure corridors to leverage previous
    investments, reduce environmental impacts, lower costs, and
    speed execution as a basis for profitability.
        We continue to build every day and in 2022, we will
    complete the extension into the Orlando International Airport,
    making our total route 235 miles, linking four of the largest
    cities in America's third largest State. Four hundred million
    annual trips occur between these cities today, 95 percent of
    them by car. By upgrading a freight railway first built in the
    1890s and building along an express highway, we leveraged 130
    years of previous investment to support our 21st-century
    service. Brightline is on track to carry 9 million annual
    riders.
        Brightline West will connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles,
    where today 50 million annual trips and over 100 daily flights
    occur. Traveling on trains capable of speeds of 200 miles an
    hour, using the I-15 corridor but cutting the drive time in
    half, Brightline West's better option expects to serve 11
    million annual riders.
        We integrate with other systems to fashion a multimodal
    network that is diverse and convenient. MiamiCentral connects
    all local transit systems with ride sharing, bike sharing, and
    even e-scooters to connect our customers to their ultimate
    destination. Integration requires interagency investment and
    innovation, but also offers real opportunity to enhance the
    appeal of train travel in America. Cooperation is key to
    advancing priorities related to jobs, climate, and equity, so
    the many benefits that accrue from the introduction of high-
    speed rail are unlocked. Revitalizing Miami's Overtown
    neighborhood, equitable access to transportation, and new
    employment opportunities are just a few of the benefits in
    addition to the $6.4 billion in total economic impact
    Brightline has already produced in Florida.
        As this subcommittee looks to exact results, especially
    through increased public investment, we urge you not to
    consolidate around a single approach and not to underestimate
    the power private investment can bring towards crafting a
    national network. Consider allowing private entities to become
    eligible parties for FRA grant programs by partnering with
    currently eligible applicants as a simple way to stretch direct
    Government investment. High-speed rail projects require large,
    upfront investments and need cost-efficient long-term
    financing. Private activity bonds help us attract private
    lenders and freed up capital to be redirected into building our
    hard assets.
        Consider increasing the volume cap on PABs from the current
    $15 billion, which has already been exhausted, to $30 billion,
    to create a larger pool to help finance projects. An
    improvement, but PABs alone is not the full solution.
        RRIF was designed as a low-interest loan in lieu of grants
    to incent projects that need an economic boost. We vigorously
    pursued RRIF but ultimately found it ineffective for projects
    such as ours. RRIF has only provided $6.2 billion in project
    funding over the last two decades, none of which has gone to
    high-speed rail. Why? These projects get laden with high
    upfront credit risk premiums, adding inertia that defeats the
    momentum otherwise gathered from a low-interest loan. If credit
    risk premiums were an eligible use of U.S. DOT discretionary
    grant programs, much smaller grants used in conjunction with a
    loan would ultimately return principal and interest to the
    Government, engage equity investment into the collateral, and
    lower the overall level of public investment needed to exact
    results.
        We commend the efforts of this subcommittee and believe our
    collective efforts can advance us towards an American high-
    speed rail system that will compete against the best in the
    world. And as an active participant, we remain fully committed
    to overcoming inertia and building more systems we can all ride
    within the next 4 years.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity.
        [Mr. Reininger's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of P. Michael Reininger, Chief Executive Officer,
                            Brightline Holdings, LLC
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Brightline Holdings.
    It is an honor to be before you today. Over the past five years,
    Brightline has built and now operates the only private high-speed
    passenger rail system in the United States providing modern, eco-
    friendly service in one of the largest and most congested travel
    markets in the country. We are currently developing our second system
    to serve Southern California and Las Vegas. We think that across the
    country, there are multiple places in need of a high-speed rail
    alternative like ours.
        Brightline is based in Miami, where we are represented by our
    distinguished Congresswoman and your subcommittee colleague, the
    Honorable Frederica Wilson, a true champion of our efforts. The
    Honorable Dina Titus, also on this subcommittee, is an advocate for
    Brightline West. We are grateful for their support, as well as that of
    the other dedicated committee members along our Florida corridor and of
    our efforts out west.
        Four years ago; when Brightline was still under construction, I
    offered testimony before this Subcommittee as Executive Director of
    Brightline's parent company, Florida East Coast Industries. Since then,
    we have seen tremendous progress including the launch of Brightline's
    initial operation in Florida which showcases the potential of high-
    speed rail. We carried more than one million guests in our first full
    calendar year. Though COVID-19 has temporarily interrupted our
    operations--in part because as a private company, we were not eligible
    for CARES Act funding--we are preparing for a relaunch later this year.
        I am delighted to share what we have learned from our investment of
    more than $4 billion over the last 10 years, so that it might help
    catalyze more investment from private and public sector participants
    into high-speed rail in America.
        We see tremendous opportunity to forge meaningful progress amidst
    the amplified discussion around high-speed rail as this subcommittee
    explores ways to expedite the realization of that potential. In
    particular, I would like to focus my comments on three areas.
        First, our business model which parallels the most successful
    models from around the world, while applying American ingenuity to our
    different context and circumstances.
        Second, the multiple benefits to customers, economies and
    communities that accrue from the introduction of transportation
    investments such as high-speed rail.
        And third, steps this subcommittee can initiate to incentivize
    greater participation by the private sector to multiply the effects of
    public-sector investment and overcome hurdles that have inhibited
    progress to date.
        Without question, passenger rail represents an important element of
    our transportation infrastructure, but we often hear the many voices
    who lament the fact that the U.S. does not enjoy the same level of
    modern service by train that exists in many competing global economies.
        There is a direct correlation between market capture of passenger
    rail and travel time saved versus driving. Time savings of one, two,
    and three hours as compared to driving, translates to market capture
    rates of approximately 15%, 40%, and 50%, respectively. Examples
    include New York to D.C. 27%, Florence to Rome 30%, and Tokyo to Osaka
    64%.
        Similarly, high-speed rail significantly displaces air travel. In
    markets such as France, Italy, England and Spain high-speed rail
    captures on average, 80% of the total rail and air travel market.
    Brightline shares the characteristics of these examples, serving medium
    distance corridors, connecting large populations, and saving time and
    money compared to alternative travel modes.
        In addition to our approach, two other models exist in the United
    States. The first is the Amtrak model, in which the federal government
    provides all the capital for infrastructure and systems and
    subsequently subsidizes operating expenses. Another approach, being
    utilized in California, relies on participation from state and federal
    resources with a long-term commitment for operating and maintenance
    expenses.
        Our model, by contrast, is premised on three key constructs:
        1.  Careful selection of markets and the introduction of a clear
    consumer value proposition.
        2.  Leveraging existing infrastructure to reduce capital costs,
    mitigate environmental impact and increase speed to market.
        3.  Integration across transportation systems to develop door-to-
    door optionality for a range of customer types.

        We focus on high volume travel markets where the introduction of
    passenger rail presents a faster, safer, greener and more economical
    option to how people travel today. Changing habits requires offering a
    better option.
        Specifically, we target city pairs that are ``too short to fly and
    too far to drive.'' As a practical matter, distances of 200-400 miles,
    where we offer considerable time savings over driving on congested
    roads or comparable timing to flying at significantly less cost. Add to
    that basic proposition a thoughtful customer experience and you have
    the core of our business thesis.
        Brightline links the downtowns of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West
    Palm Beach. Our service is an alternative to reliance on one of the
    most congested and dangerous roadways in the country. We recently
    crossed the halfway point of construction, and in 2022 we will complete
    the extension of our service into the Orlando International Airport.
    Our total route will be 235 miles with connections to four of the
    largest cities in America's third largest state. Today, 400 million
    annual trips occur between these cities, with over 95% of them taken by
    car. Upon stabilization, Brightline will carry 9 million riders on this
    route.
        Florida is an increasingly popular destination. In 2019, we
    welcomed 130 million visitors and are experiencing growing relocation
    of both individuals and businesses. With the growth of our market and
    the increasing adoption of our new service, we recently announced the
    addition of three new stops along our South Florida line in Aventura,
    Boca Raton and PortMiami.
        Brightline West, the company's first expansion outside Florida,
    will connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Starting with a convenient
    station on Las Vegas Blvd., Brightline West will connect to LA via
    Rancho Cucamonga with an inline station in the Victor Valley.
        Traveling at expected top speeds of 180 mph on eco-friendly
    electric trains, we'll cut the drive-time in half. Our system will
    provide a superior option for the 50 million annual trips taken by cars
    and over a hundred daily flights presently taxing this congested travel
    market. Brightline West expects to serve 11 million annual riders.
        Central to our proposition is a commitment to optimizing every
    detail of our passengers' experience including free onboard Wi-Fi,
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility from station to
    train, a wide selection of food and beverage and of course next-
    generation infrastructure including stations, trains and technology
    that rivals the best in the world.
        In order to be profitable, we need to be efficient with our capital
    investment. For us, this starts with leveraging existing transportation
    corridors. By optimizing the total cost and time associated with
    creating the system infrastructure, we forge the basis of economic
    stability for the business.
        In Europe and Asia high-speed rail has taken advantage of a rail
    network that is primarily focused on passenger trains and benefits from
    significant public investment into the ownership and maintenance of the
    infrastructure. By contrast, the US has focused on decades of
    infrastructure investment on freight lines and highways, so that is
    where we must look for opportunity.
        In Florida, we expanded and upgraded an historic freight line first
    built by Henry Flagler in the 1890s which gave rise to the State's
    initial development surge. Enhanced with new value, a century of
    previous investment now supports the introduction of our new service,
    spearheading a 21st-century phase of development and growth.
        We look to utilize existing road alignments. By building a rail
    network within existing transportation corridors we reduce
    environmental impacts and project costs while saving time in review,
    approval and construction. For example, to facilitate our planned
    extension from Orlando to Tampa we are negotiating with the Florida DOT
    to secure the Rights of Way along existing corridors such as Interstate
    4. Brightline West will leverage this same strategy along Interstate
    15. The smart use of previous investments and foresight regarding
    future investments is central to long-term economic effectiveness. This
    is an area where cooperation between public and private sectors can
    yield dramatic results.
        The third element of our model is integration of various transit
    systems to facilitate ``the last mile.'' Again, learning from abroad we
    know high-speed rail is most successful in densely populated city
    centers, where the vast majority of individuals find themselves within
    easy reach of a station.
        US cities tend to be less dense and more reliant on private
    automobiles, so we focus on linking our stations and systems to planned
    and existing transit operations to fashion a multi-modal network of
    services that is seamless and convenient.
        As examples, MiamiCentral will connect Tri Rail, South Florida's
    regional commuter system, to Miami's Metrorail, Metromover and Metrobus
    systems and integrates ridesharing services, bike-sharing and e-scooter
    systems to connect customers to their ultimate destinations. In Fort
    Lauderdale, we connect with Broward's Transit buses and in Palm Beach
    to the County's Palm Tran Bus and Palm Trolley. In Orlando, we will be
    located within one of America's most active airports, with
    opportunities for extensive transit integration. Looking forward,
    Brightline West will connect via Metrolink to greater Los Angeles.
        This level of integration requires inter-agency cooperation,
    investment and innovation but also offers the most opportunity for real
    leverage in advancing the appeal of train travel in America.
        Cooperation will unlock the substantial benefits of high-speed rail
    and advance the administration's priorities related to jobs, climate,
    and equity. High speed rail benefits will come in many forms including
    improved public safety, enhanced environmental sustainability, valuable
    contributions to equitable access for underserved communities, and
    significant economic benefits across the spectrum.
        Trains are one of the safest ways to travel. Some analyses have
    found intercity rail to be 18 times safer than automobile travel. As
    passenger rail takes millions of cars off America's roads, travel
    becomes inherently safer.
        All forms of mass transit represent environmental improvements over
    cars and planes. The International Energy Association indicates that
    passenger rail is already more than three times as energy efficient as
    a car and 12 times more energy efficient than air travel (per
    passenger). Shifting occupancy to and increasing electrification of
    high-speed rail, in combination with increasingly lower carbon-
    intensity of electric power production, will deliver even greater
    emissions reductions.
        Our Florida trains run on biodiesel and Brightline West will
    operate zero-emission, electric trains. Together, these routes will
    remove more than a half million tons of CO2 emissions annually by
    eliminating 7.6 million vehicle trips.
        Additionally, high speed rail revitalizes downtown areas with new
    transit hubs, enhancing existing infrastructure and encouraging further
    development to consolidate around stations.
        Both our transportation and development activities have advanced
    equity within our communities. Development of MiamiCentral helped spur
    revitalization of Overtown, an historically vibrant community of color
    that was cut off with the construction of I-95 decades ago.
        We made a priority of establishing our corporate headquarters in
    Overtown and put in place a hiring system that offers preference to
    people within our local community. Moreover, we have increased equity
    in terms of access to transportation opportunities as a part of our
    partnership with local commuter services in South Florida.
        In a powerful example of a public-private partnership, we have
    afforded access to a large section of our corridor for use by Tri-Rail.
    This arrangement helps provide free rides to everyone living in the
    Community Redevelopment Area and expands access to employment
    opportunities for many who historically did not have a connection to
    downtown Miami.
        And of course, there's the $6.4 billion in economic impact that
    Florida is already realizing as a consequence of our activities,
    including:
          $2.4 billion in labor income.
          $3.5 billion added to Florida's GDP.
          10,000 jobs created through rail-line construction: 1000
    workers daily during COVID.
          2,000 jobs created post rail-line construction.
          Tens of millions of dollars already added to the state's
    tax base.

        Our hope as we grow is to facilitate a ``Buy America'' foundation
    through technology transfer to a vibrant manufacturing sector for high-
    speed equipment and infrastructure here in the US. Currently, this
    equipment is primarily built abroad where sufficient markets already
    exist to support its production.
        Establishing a next-generation form of transportation is capital-
    intensive and time-sensitive, but we believe Brightline has provided a
    proof-of-concept that can offer a model to accelerate a broader
    realization of high-speed rail in the United States.
        I would also highlight what I believe this subcommittee can do to
    incentivize further private investment as the government seeks to
    increase its own commitment to high-speed rail.
        The first area we would point the subcommittee's attention toward
    is access to efficient capital. Massive upfront capital needs require
    cost-efficient long-term capital. Specifically, increasing the private
    activity bond (PAB) volume cap and making improvements to the Railroad
    Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program represent
    actionable opportunities for improvement.
        PABs attract private lenders willing to accept lower rates on bonds
    because of their tax-exempt status and that lower rate reduces the cost
    of capital to the developer. The savings on interest expense can be
    redirected into hard assets. Any deferred tax revenue is made up over
    time as the invested money is put to work in the economy.
        Our request is pretty simple: consider increasing the volume cap
    from the current $15 billion--which has already been exhausted--to a
    minimum of $30 billion to help finance projects.
        Another opportunity to improve access to capital is to revamp the
    RRIF program to make it more attractive to private investors in
    passenger rail projects. RRIF offers direct loans for up to 100% of a
    railroad project with repayment periods of up to 35 years, with no pre-
    payment penalty, and interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to
    the government.
        Congress has authorized $35 billion in loan authority for the RRIF
    program, but only $6.2 billion in rail project funding over the last
    two decades \1\--none of which has gone to high-speed rail. The reason
    is that these projects are viewed as start-up ventures, with limited
    credit history and are therefore subjected to high upfront credit-risk
    premiums which defeat the intention of a low-interest loan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/rrif/
    railroad-rehabilitation-improvement-financing-rrif
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ways to overcome this include making credit risk premiums an
    eligible use of any USDOT discretionary grant program, such as CRISI,
    RAISE, INFRA or even a new program like PRIME that was included in last
    session's HR2 legislative package. High speed rail projects could then
    utilize grants to offset the initial costs of RRIF financing. Our view
    is that facilitating a loan that ultimately returns principal and
    interest to the government and lowers the burden of taxpayers by
    providing a mix of a grant and loan, is a more efficient way to affect
    the desired results and benefits of these projects.
        Another opportunity to spur investment is to include private sector
    rail operators as eligible parties in both new and existing intercity
    passenger rail grant programs. This can be realized by allowing for
    current eligible applicants to partner with the private sector.
        One final, and essentially cost-free, means of incentivizing
    further private-sector participation in advancing high-speed rail is to
    increase investor confidence by introducing greater certainty into the
    approval process.
        Advancing a high-speed project involves clearing a series of
    financing hurdles and a wide range of approvals at every level of
    government from municipal to federal. We understand and appreciate the
    diligence of officials in protecting the public and are more than
    willing to proceed within the existing laws and regulatory frameworks.
        However, a challenge that often adds unnecessary time and expense
    to projects is the routine granting of extensions on deadlines for
    regulatory comment periods. Therefore, we would encourage the
    Subcommittee and Congress to consider reducing the degree of discretion
    in extending deadlines, especially for comment periods, under existing
    laws and regulatory reviews.
        As a company we are committed to the model we outlined here today
    as an example of how the private sector can contribute to the goal of
    advancing high-speed rail in America. Brightline believes that working
    together we can achieve a rail sector that will compete among the best
    in the world. We again commend the Chairman, the Ranking Member and
    this Subcommittee for their efforts to re-engage the nation on how to
    initiate safe, convenient, affordable, efficient, and environmentally
    friendly high-speed rail in America.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        We will now have Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
    the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
    today.
        We are 100 percent U.S. owned and franchised by the
    Maryland Public Service Commission to provide high-speed rail
    service between Washington, DC, and Baltimore, utilizing the
    world's fastest proven mass transportation technology, the
    superconducting magnetic levitation. SCMAGLEV is
    environmentally friendly, energy efficient, and deliverable
    today.
        The Northeast Corridor, or as it has been named the
    ``Northeast Megalopolis,'' is the most populous corridor in the
    United States. It holds over 50 million people on 2 percent of
    the land area and accounts for 20 percent of U.S. GDP and 75
    percent of all U.S. rail traffic. This megaregion lacks modern
    first-class transportation infrastructure.
        Central Japan Railway, or JRC, began maglev technology
    development in 1962, and in 1997 constructed the Yamanashi
    Priority Line, demonstrating, testing, and proving SCMAGLEV
    technology. It is fully Japanese Government approved now for
    public use.
        In 1998, Congress created the Maglev Deployment Program.
    The purpose of this program was not to do research and
    development on maglev, but to actually deploy a system at the
    best location in the United States. A national competition was
    created for States to apply and ultimately select the single
    project. Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project is the winner of
    that competition.
        Far exceeding Congress' original goals, we have entered
    into an agreement with JRC granting BWRR a cost-free license to
    deploy the SCMAGLEV on the Northeast Corridor. JRC has had a
    bullet train deployed since 1964. In 2019, it carried 168
    million passengers, with trains as often as every 3\1/2\
    minutes at an average annual delay of under 1 minute. It is the
    safest transportation system in the world, with no accident-
    related fatalities in 57 years of operation.
        SCMAGLEV in Japan does not replace the bullet train; it is
    in addition to existing high-speed service. We anticipate the
    same with the U.S. deployment of SCMAGLEV. Amtrak will still
    carry millions of passengers. We are complementary to Amtrak
    and we are singularly focused on the 94 percent of passengers
    that still utilize their automobile. Our short-term vision is a
    standalone project connecting Washington, BWI Airport, and
    Baltimore in 15 minutes. A longer term vision will connect all
    the major city centers and airports to New York City in an
    hour.
        In pursuing our vision, we are guided by four principles.
        Number one, best-in-the-world technology.
        Number two, job creation, creating 161,000 construction
    job-years, employee labor earnings of $8.8 billion, skilled
    training and union jobs for tens of thousands, increased U.S.
    GDP of $23 billion from construction, and $599 million a year
    thereafter.
        Diversity, equity and inclusion, number three. We have a
    written DEI plan developed along with minority firms, civil
    rights groups, and social activists. The goal, 40 percent of
    construction-related jobs for people of color and women.
        Four, combatting climate change. Transportation is a major
    contributor to global climate change. DC to Baltimore has
    currently over 120 million car trips per year. We will reduce
    vehicle-miles traveled by 9 to 12 percent, eliminating 16
    million cars and 2 million tons of greenhouse gas reduction.
        In 2016, a full environmental impact statement began, and
    the draft has already been publicly released. Public hearings
    on the project are complete. While there are always negative
    comments on a large infrastructure project, 79 percent of the
    public hearing testimony testified in favor of the project.
    Over 19,500 people have signed a petition in favor of the
    project. Corridor polling since 2011 in 4 different years has
    shown over 86 percent support for the project. For example, in
    April 2021, polling in Prince George's County, a majority
    minority community, showed 72 percent of African Americans in
    favor of the project.
        The private sector has invested over $120 million in the
    BWRR project. The Congress should replenish funding already
    authorized in the MDP.
        The Government of Japan has stated a willingness to provide
    significant financial support for the cost between Baltimore
    and Washington, DC. This precedent-setting combination of no-
    cost technology transfer, mobilization of financing from the
    private sector, offshore financing, and technical support
    multiplies the effect of U.S. Government funding to deliver
    21st-century infrastructure.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity.
        [Mr. Rogers' prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief Executive
                         Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC
        Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear today. I am
    Wayne Rogers, the Chairman/CEO of The Northeast Maglev, LLC and the
    Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail, LLC.
        The Northeast Maglev is a 100% US Veteran-owned company promoting
    the deployment of the fastest, proven mass transportation system in the
    world, the Super-Conducting Maglev, on the Northeast Corridor. BWRR is
    a railroad company, franchised by the Maryland Public Service
    Commission, to provide high speed rail service between Washington DC,
    Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), and
    Baltimore. When in service the SCMAGLEV project will provide 15-minute
    service between Washington and Baltimore and one hour service between
    Washington and New York, operating at 311 mph.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the US Maglev
    Deployment Program and the Baltimore-Washington SCMAGLEV Project
    specifically.
        Our vision will connect the Northeast Corridor utilizing the
    fastest, proven, and tested transportation technology in the world
    today. A technology which is not only environmentally friendly and
    energy-efficient but is deliverable today.
        The Northeast Corridor, or as it has been named the ``Northeast
    Megalopolis,'' is the most populous corridor in the United States. It
    holds over 50 million people, or 17% of the US population on 2% of the
    land area. The population density of approximately 1000 people per
    square mile vastly exceeds the US average of 80 people per square mile.
    Population projections show that the corridor will have continued
    growth.
        The region accounts for 20% of US GDP. It is the home to not only
    the US Capitol and the White House, but also the NY Stock Exchange, the
    UN Headquarters, NASDAQ, the headquarters of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, Fox,
    Comcast, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today. Many
    major financial institutions such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup,
    Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Capital One and Fidelity make
    their homes here. 54 of the Fortune Global 500 companies and 162 of the
    Fortune 500 are located in the region.
        The region should have modern, first class transportation
    infrastructure.
        The vision of bringing Maglev to the Northeast Corridor is one that
    Congress and the US Government has long supported.
        The Final Report of the National Maglev Initiative in September
    1993 laid the groundwork for where we are today. That report evaluated
    Maglev development efforts in Japan and Germany and found them to be
    technically feasible and desirable for deployment in the US. The Report
    concluded that in the 10 corridors it assessed, Maglev would cover all
    its operating costs and substantially contribute to its capital costs.
    More importantly,

            ``In the Northeast Corridor its revenues would cover total life
            cycle costs. These projected results reflect the ability of the
            technology to offer the best door-to-door travel time for
            distances up to 300 miles and very competitive travel times
            even up to 600 miles.''

        The conclusion of the Final Report was that there were no technical
    impediments to developing/deploying Maglev in the US. The report
    examined the alternatives of buying a system from a foreign source to
    gain experience or totally developing one in the US.

            ``One approach is a US industry partnership to implement a
            foreign maglev design in the United States . . . The cost for
            this development work could be shared with the US and foreign
            industry partners, but, from a practical standpoint, the
            foreign industry would not likely spend additional development
            funds unless there is an assured market with a reasonable
            return time period.''

        I appear before you today with an opportunity for the United States
    that is even better than that which was anticipated in 1993, a cost-
    free technology license.
                        Magnetic Levitation Development
        Magnetic Levitation or ``Maglev'' transportation technology has
    been developed over a period of more than 50 years, and the
    Superconducting Maglev has its roots in the US, where the initial
    concepts were developed by two noted scientists at Brookhaven National
    Laboratory.
        In Japan, what is now the Central Japan Railway Company (JRC) began
    Maglev technology development in 1962. In 1997 JRC began running tests
    on the Yamanashi Maglev Line ``priority section'' demonstrating
    SCMAGLEV technology. It is fully approved for public use.
        Unlike conventional railway systems, the SCMAGLEV accelerates and
    decelerates not by a force generated by a mechanical motor, but through
    a magnetic force generated between the onboard superconducting magnets
    and electromagnetic coils in a guideway.
        For propulsion, the SCMAGLEV system utilizes the concept of a
    linear motor, which resembles a conventional electric motor that has
    been ``unrolled.'' Rather than producing a rotational force, the linear
    motor causes motion in a line along its length. In the SCMAGLEV system,
    the simultaneous attracting and repelling forces interacting between
    superconducting magnets on the train and propulsion coils in the
    guideway walls propel the train along a guideway at speeds over 300
    mph.
        In 1998, noting Japanese Maglev deployment and that the US still
    had no high-speed rail systems and was falling further and further
    behind in the world in technology, the Congress created the ``Maglev
    Deployment Program''. The purpose of the program was not to study or to
    develop Maglev but to actually deploy a system at some location in the
    United States. A national competition was created for States to apply
    to the USDOT to select a single project. 12 applications were supported
    by 14 entities. 7 States were selected for further study, eventually to
    3 with the goal of having one. After a span of work of over 20 years,
    the Washington Baltimore Maglev Project is the winner of that
    competition.
        Far exceeding the goals outlined originally, BWRR has entered into
    a technology agreement with JRC granting to BWRR a cost-free license to
    deploy the SCMAGLEV on the Northeast Corridor. This saves the federal
    government what would have been billions of dollars in technology
    development and allows immediate deployment of the system.
        Despite the tendency of some to label Maglev an `emerging
    technology', the SCMAGLEV is a fully proven system. It has been
    thoroughly evaluated by the Japanese government, which acknowledged
    that the system technologies had been comprehensively established in
    2009. In 2011, the Japanese government enacted SCMAGLEV technical
    standards. The Yamanashi segment is now being extended with multiple
    construction contracts underway to connect Tokyo and Nagoya.
        As those of you who have traveled to Japan have experienced first-
    hand, JRC's Tokaido Shinkansen Bullet Train high speed rail deployed in
    1964, carried 168 million passengers in 2019, with an average annual
    delay under a minute and no accident-related fatalities ever in 57
    years. SCMAGLEV will not replace the bullet train, it will be in
    addition to existing service.
        Northeast Maglev believes that this will be the same with
    deployment of the SCMAGLEV on the Northeast Corridor. AMTRAK will still
    continue to carry millions of passengers. SCMAGLEV is not targeted as
    competition with AMTRAK, rather is complementary and focused on the 94%
    of passengers that still utilize their automobile for corridor travel.
                   The Maglev Deployment Program and Congress
        Maturity of the technology was a clear desire of Congress for the
    Maglev Deployment Program. It was funded by Congress who provided $60
    million in contract authority and authorized $950 million as part of
    TEA-21 in 1998. SAFETEA-LU provided an additional $90 million in
    contract authority. $10 million was provided in FY19 appropriations and
    $2 million in each of FY20 and FY21. The Maglev Deployment Program was
    a statement of US Government policy that Maglev had been studied
    sufficiently and emphasized building a high-speed maglev project in the
    best corridor in America. It has been a long and focused effort.
                    The Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project
        The Baltimore-Washington Project which I represent is the winner of
    the MDP competition.
        Our short-term vision for this project is to connect Washington, DC
    to BWITM Airport in about 9 minutes, after a one-minute stop, the City
    of Baltimore in about 5 minutes, for a total DC to Baltimore trip of 15
    minutes. Our longer-term vision is connecting cities and airports to
    New York City in one hour, ultimately to Boston at 311+ mph.
        In pursuing our vision, we are guided by four (4) principles:
        1.  Best in the world technology. The project will utilize not only
    best in the world transportation technology but will incorporate all
    advanced software and technical systems in providing 21st century
    transportation.
        2.  Job Creation. The DC to Baltimore leg is anticipated to create
    in construction 123,000 job years and 38,000 professional service job
    years. Regional labor employee labor earnings are estimated at $8.8
    billion. The Project will not only create jobs it will provide skilled
    training for thousands of workers. BWRR has signed an agreement with
    the National Association of Building Trade Unions (NABTU) to build the
    project under a project labor agreement. The project has not only been
    endorsed by the NABTU but also the Eastern Atlantic States Council of
    Carpenters, the Baltimore DC Metro Building Trades Council, the
    Maryland Transportation Builders, the Painters and Allied Trades Union,
    and the Laborers International Union NA. The Project has garnered
    business support being endorsed by the Baltimore City, Baltimore,
    Northern Anne Arundel and Prince George's County Chambers of Commerce
    as well as the Maryland Hispanic Chamber and several Black chambers of
    commerce.
        3.  Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. The Project has a written DEI
    plan, developed with minority firms, civil rights groups and social
    activists. The Project's goal is 40% of construction related jobs to be
    provided to people of color and women, taking great care also to seek
    representation of recruits from the jurisdictions where the Project
    will have a presence.
        4.  Combatting Climate Change. Transportation is a huge contributor
    to global climate change. DC to Baltimore have over 120 million car
    trips per year. The Project will reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled between
    9 and 12% diverting up to 16 million car trips. This means reducing
    greenhouse gas emission by more than 2 million tons.
                      Environmental Status of the Project
        In 2016, a full Environment Impact Statement was begun for the
    Project by the Federal Railroad Administration. Over 200 public and
    agency meetings have been held. The Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement was issued on January 15, 2021. Six virtual public hearings
    were held on the DEIS ending April 10, 2021 and while there are always
    negative comments about a large infrastructure project, 79% of the
    commentors who testified, testified in favor of the Project. The
    comment date for the DEIS closes on May 24, 2021. We hope to have the
    final EIS and Record of Decision by the first quarter of 2022.
                         Public Support for the Project
        Over 19,500 people have signed a petition in favor of the Project.
    Over 3,300 people have written letters of support to elected officials.
    Polling conducted in 4 different years since 2011 show over 86% support
    for the Project in the corridor. In Prince George's County in April
    2021 polling showed 72% of African Americans in favor of the Project
    and 68% of the general public in favor, despite not having a stop in
    the County. Only 19% of the people in the County were against the
    Project.
                          Congressional Action Needed
        The private sector has invested over $120 million in the BWRR
    Project. The federal government has provided the State of Maryland
    $27.8 million in MDP cooperative agreement funding, as well as an
    additional $26 million in funding approved but not yet contracted.
        For the Project to proceed as envisioned under the MDP, Congress
    will need to replenish funding in the MDP that is needed to undertake
    the detailed engineering, geotechnical investigations and other
    activities necessary for the Project to proceed to construction, as
    well as continued System Technology Familiarization (safety review)
    activities undertaken with the FRA, BWRR and JRC leading to the rules
    for the safe operation of SC Maglev in the United States.
        We are requesting $300 million in contract authority for the MDP
    which would be provided to the State of Maryland to complete activities
    precedent to finalizing construction. At this time, we estimate the
    civil capital costs to be around $9 billion.
        The Government of Japan has stated a willingness to provide
    significant financial support for the cost of the initial operating
    segment between Baltimore-Washington, DC.
        This precedent setting combination of no-cost technology licensing,
    mobilization of financing from the private sector, and off-shore,
    multiplies the effect of government funding to deliver infrastructure.
        With support from the private sector and the Japanese Government,
    if action is taken by the Congress and timely action by the FRA, we
    anticipate revenue service could begin around 2030.
        We look forward to working with the Committee to meet those
    requirements and to bring the SCMAGLEV Project in our most important
    corridor to fruition.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

        Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will
    be recognized for 5 minutes. And I will start by recognizing
    myself.
        Mr. Flynn, I know that Amtrak currently operates its Acela
    high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor, which was
    the way I got here last night. The Acela service helps
    transport many of my constituents up and down the Northeast
    Corridor.
        I look forward to clearing out the infrastructure backlog
    on the Northeast Corridor, including the Gateway Program, so
    that Acela trains can travel at the entire full speed along the
    entire corridor. Can you elaborate more on where you see the
    Acela service and Amtrak service in general fitting in with
    high-speed rail?
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you for riding the Acela down here to Washington the
    other evening [inaudible].
        As I mentioned in my comments earlier, we do operate high-
    speed rail. That high-speed rail is Acela. And the complaints
    we have in the near term, in terms of speed and reliability
    [inaudible] former CEO of Amtrak [inaudible] the way to go
    faster is to not go slow.
        So to increase speeds in the near term on our right-of-way,
    on our alignment, we have a substantial repair backlog
    [inaudible] structure and, as you know, certainly with tunnels
    and bridges along that right-of-way, which is why I called
    attention to the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, which has an
    operating speed right now of 30 miles an hour.
        So we are operating the Washington to New York segment on
    an average speed of 80 miles an hour today. We can achieve top
    speeds of 135 miles an hour. But with improvements, such as I
    have suggested earlier, we believe we can get the Washington to
    New York segment down to 2 hours, a savings of 50 minutes or
    so, operating at an average speed of call that 113 miles an
    hour, for example. And on the north end of our Northeast
    Corridor, we can make substantial improvement in our New York
    to Boston route, which is currently at about 3 hours and 40
    minutes and get that down more than an hour to 2 hours and 28
    minutes with state-of-good-repair investments and ultimately
    the investments that are required in the infrastructure.
        Mr. Payne. And as I have stated to the last panel, equity
    in rail is one of my top priorities as chairman of this
    subcommittee. I wanted to be sure that your projects will
    benefit underserved communities and offer a fair shot at
    contracting opportunities for minority-owned businesses.
        To the panel, how will your projects take equity into
    consideration and how do you plan to give minority-owned
    businesses a fair shot at contracting?
        Start with Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, we have very
    clear targets for set [inaudible] and these are very specific.
    They are coordinated with the city of Houston for the southern
    part of the alignment, and the city of Dallas for the northern
    part of the alignment. The targets are, on average, 34 percent
    inclusion targets for construction and 24 percent for
    professional services. So that gives you a sense of how much of
    a priority it is for us.
        Number two, in terms of equity for rural communities, I
    mentioned in my statement that we will provide some additional
    services, broadband being one. Our plan is to have broadband
    alongside our alignment for up to 30 miles on either side of it
    offered to the population.
        Mr. Payne. OK, Mr. Aguilar, I am going to have to move on.
        Mr. Giegel, same question. And just a quick response,
    please.
        Mr. Giegel. Thank you for your question. We are looking
    for--on new technology, we are creating new technology. With
    that, we are connecting local cities to economic opportunities,
    using local partners. And this is going to be about connect
    places along the way. There is no such thing as fly-over States
    anymore. The ability to get more people on our network,
    creating more opportunities for employment, for jobs, for
    recreation. Also for local partners to actually create the
    infrastructure in that particular area.
        Mr. Payne. In underserved communities?
        Mr. Giegel. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Payne. And minority businesses?
        Mr. Giegel. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Mr. de Leon? You are muted. You are still on mute.
        Mr. de Leon. Sorry. I was saying that the way that we have
    built the HyperloopTT company has been by radical cooperation
    with the environment. We are a technological company that
    collaborates with technological partners, small companies, big
    companies, the startup environment, and also with the
    communities. We do not know to do the job in another way. You
    know, that is the way that this company has been done based on
    our crowdsourcing effort.
        [Andres de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop
    Transportation Technologies, submitted the following post-
    hearing supplement to his preceding remarks:]

        The most successful strategies to diversify contracting and
    procurement provisions begin with studying the existing disparities in
    small and large government contracting, setting clear and measurable
    goals for the share of contracts awarded to MBEs, WBEs, and DBEs, and
    providing resources to these businesses to navigate the bidding
    process. Equity in contracting will recognize, respect and implement
    these provisions regardless of location, working directly with local,
    state and federal agencies that are party to the contracting process
    and mechanism.
        In all cases, efforts will be made to encourage minority-owned
    businesses to participate in the project through the supply chain,
    during construction and operations.

        Mr. Payne. Mr. Reininger?
        Mr. Reininger. Yes, thank you. So for our construction
    effort in the State of Florida, we modeled the entirety of our
    program after the targets that were set by the Florida
    Department of Transportation for the same sorts of topics. And
    I am happy to say that we have consistently met and exceeded
    those--the achievement of those goals throughout the
    construction of our process.
        And as to equity, through the creation of the multimodal
    system at MiamiCentral, we have dramatically increased
    equitable access to a number of transportation systems through
    this network that we have been able to craft right in the
    center of the downtown area of Miami.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. And what were those goal numbers?
        Mr. Reininger. They were 10 percent total for MBEs and WBEs
    in participation in the construction.
        Mr. Payne. OK. Mr. Rogers, very quickly.
        Mr. Rogers. Yes. We worked with civil rights groups and
    activists from the beginning, providing them a seat at the
    table from the start of the project. As we outlined, it is one
    of our four pillars of the project itself. We set open and
    transparent goals, 40 percent of the work going to minorities,
    people of color, and women. We are working with unions on
    training programs within underserved communities. There are
    lots of union apprenticeship programs from minority
    communities. We are working with them. And our partners sitting
    at the table are groups like National Action Network or Black
    Chamber, the Hispanic Chamber, the Women Chamber, and they are
    all growing together, all of us working together as an integral
    part of developing this project.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. I yield back and now recognize Mr.
    Crawford for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        I want to start with Mr. Flynn. Amtrak announced its plans
    to expand its routes, including to several small cities, where
    there does not appear to be enough demand or population to
    warrant those new lines. Can you guarantee that those new
    routes will be self-sustaining and turn a profit? Or will they
    lose money?
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you for the question, Mr. Crawford. So we
    announced a vision, Amtrak Connects US, which talks about
    expansion of existing lines and service to new areas, about 60
    routes therein. The other key point that we mentioned there,
    Congressman, was that we would open these routes, initiate
    either new service or expanded service, in consultation with
    the States and with the other authorities, be they municipal
    authorities, departments of transportation, et cetera. So that
    vision is indicative. We had a great meeting and a press
    roundtable with representatives from the State of Colorado and
    Oklahoma just the other day, really a few weeks ago, where
    there was a huge excitement about that kind of expansion, given
    the massive congestion that exists on the I-45 corridor and the
    5 million people that live along that Front Range.
        So it will be deliberate. It will be in consultation with
    States and communities to ensure that there is a level of
    ridership that will grow and can support those routes.
        Mr. Crawford. But you are not in a position right now to
    say whether or not that will be self-sustaining, or that it
    would indeed require a high degree of subsidization?
        Mr. Flynn. I am not in a position to say that it will be
    self-sustaining. I do believe that it will require support. But
    that support will be largely borne by the States, because these
    routes are in the State-supported network. And so it is
    really--that is why we work closely with the States, because
    they have got to sign up for that economic contribution.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Flynn.
        Mr. Giegel, I want to turn to you now. You and I have had
    opportunities to talk in the past about how companies like
    Virgin Hyperloop can provide opportunities to communities
    outside of the major metropolitan areas. Could you discuss how
    your company plans to use this technology to connect more rural
    or heartland communities?
        Mr. Giegel. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
    And thank you for your work with Chairman DeFazio last year on
    the codification of the NETT Council.
        So speaking a little bit on your area, like looking at
    Little Rock, smaller, a reasonably smaller town compared to
    some of the bigger cities, being able to connect to places like
    Memphis and into Texas, what we see is being able to reduce
    those connection times from hours to minutes, providing
    significantly more economic opportunities. And also
    diversification of employment opportunities for local
    constituents, and then also companies. And so we view this as
    recreating the interstates network, just at a substantially
    higher speed with a substantially reduced economic and
    environmental footprint.
        So this would give the opportunity for cities typically
    that are too far flung to be able to become merged together,
    being able to get from Memphis to Little Rock faster than you
    can get across uptown Manhattan, that is the power of this
    technology to bring to the heartland of America.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I look forward to that. I like the
    idea of connecting Little Rock to Memphis in 15 minutes or
    Little Rock to Dallas in 30 to 40 minutes. So it would be
    interesting to see how this develops and I appreciate you being
    here and thank you to all the panelists. And I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields back.
        And now we will go to Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are learning a lot
    today and it is a great hearing, so thank you so much for
    bringing it together.
        My first question is for either of the gentlemen from
    hyperloop, perhaps I will start with Mr. de Leon. Hyperloop
    promises unrivaled travel speeds, very impressive. But, of
    course, you do not have operational systems yet.
        So what current hurdles do you face to demonstrate your
    technologies for the purposes of Federal funding and what is
    the timeline? Mr. de Leon?
        Mr. de Leon. Yes. Yes, well, first of all, thank you for
    the question. Hyperloop technology is ready to build. And of
    course, it would not make sense, you know, to start just
    building it with the most aggressive strategy. OK? We think
    that we need to go to a progressive strategy and to grow in the
    speeds, to grow in the headways, and, you know, all the rest.
        Mr. Moulton. I understand that, sir. But could you just
    tell us what is the timeline?
        Mr. de Leon. The timeline is basically we would be ready to
    build the first as soon as we have the funding available, it
    will be ready to build the first commercial prototype. That is
    5 kilometers, it is a product that we are now analyzing to be
    built in different parts of the world. And from that, we expect
    that in that 3 years of construction, in 3 years from now, we
    will be able to move people, you know, in a real commercial
    prototype----
        [Andres de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop
    Transportation Technologies, submitted the following post-
    hearing supplement to his preceding remarks:]

        After completing a feasibility study for the Great Lakes project,
    HyperloopTT is ready to build a full-scale commercial prototype and
    system using a progressive strategy of construction. This strategy
    allows us to demonstrate to the United States government a commercial
    prototype in 3 years from the start of construction.
        A current hurdle to demonstrating HyperloopTT technologies in the
    United States is the availability of federal funds to assist the Great
    Lakes Hyperloop environmental review process. The private sector has
    advised us that they are willing to take the business risk of
    developing and operating a HyperloopTT system. Still, they are not
    enthusiastic about taking the risk of preparing the environmental
    documentation since they have no control over the cost or schedule.
    Federal funding for the EIS would unlock private capital for
    construction.
        A commercial-scale HyperloopTT project would demonstrate
    conformance with USDOT requirements and operate initially transporting
    light freight, adding passenger transportation after completing final
    certification applicable to passenger transport.
        HyperloopTT has designed and constructed the world's first full-
    scale hyperloop test center in Toulouse, France. This 320-meter system
    is capable of all testing except maximum speed that requires a longer
    track. All system and subsystem testing is currently underway.

        Mr. Moulton. Thank you. Mr. Giegel, your company has safely
    carried passengers during tests. You were one of them. What are
    the fastest speeds you have achieved during those tests?
        Mr. Giegel. Thank you for the question. We have achieved in
    our 500-yard-long facility in Las Vegas top speeds of passenger
    tests for about 110 miles an hour. Top speeds of the system
    test were approximately 240 miles an hour.
        Mr. Moulton. And so what is your timeline for achieving 670
    miles per hour with passengers?
        Mr. Giegel. We really need the length to be built out. So
    to have a system that is approximately 20 miles long or so
    would give us the opportunity to reach some of those higher
    speeds. To build that out from a timelines perspective, a
    couple more years of technology development, commercialization,
    I would say. And then towards the latter part of this funding
    cycle, we would be able to start building those projects and
    definitely applying for them over the coming years.
        Mr. Moulton. OK, great. Thank you.
        Mr. Aguilar, Texas Central is developing a Shinkansen
    system in the style of the Japanese bullet trains. Just give us
    a few points on why you have chosen that technology over some
    of the technologies that we have heard at the hearing,
    including hyperloop, which sounds magical.
        Mr. Aguilar. The main reason why is the proven track record
    of the technology, and the fact that predictability and safety
    is our main focus. We want to be the first in the United
    States. We have to show how it works, ensure it is the safest
    in the world and the most efficient. That is what the
    Shinkansen technology brings.
        Mr. Moulton. Great, thank you. And, Mr. Flynn, I just have
    a couple questions for you. I have been a huge supporter of
    Amtrak for many years in Congress and beyond. I most recently
    led a bipartisan letter for Amtrak appropriations that would
    deliver nearly $4 billion for the Northeast Corridor of the
    national network, which was based on your estimated request
    released in early April. But I do want to get straight on some
    basic facts.
        What is the top speed of the Acela service?
        Mr. Flynn. The Acela service in the southern network,
    Washington to New York, top speed is 135 miles an hour. And
    then in New York to Boston, a top speed of 150 miles an hour
    across different segments of the track.
        Now, we are operating on a lower speed on a scheduled
    basis, as most high-speed operations, in fact, do around the
    world.
        Mr. Moulton. So for how many minutes of the 7-hour journey
    from Boston to Washington does the Acela run at that top speed
    of 150 miles per hour?
        Mr. Flynn. About 34 minutes would be the--sorry, about 34
    miles, pardon me, would be the top speed. We would be operating
    at that top speed over 34 miles of track.
        Mr. Moulton. So how long does that take? What is that,
    about 8 minutes, something like that, 10 minutes?
        Mr. Flynn. It is in that range. Yeah, it is in the range of
    10 minutes, sir.
        Mr. Moulton. And so would the Acela's top speed of 150
    miles per hour qualify as high-speed rail anywhere else in the
    world?
        Mr. Flynn. Yes, 125 miles an hour is the international
    standard for high-speed rail.
        Mr. Moulton. Actually, it is widely accepted to be 186
    miles per hour. Usually the definition used in the European
    Union is about 160, 250 kilometers per hour, but 300 is really
    the standard. And, of course, in China, we are--China is
    building to much higher speeds, up to 250 miles per hour. Do
    you think that America should accept that lower standard, or
    should we be doing as well or better than the Chinese?
        Mr. Flynn. Well, I think we should be providing America
    absolutely the best mobility options and strategy that we can.
    But I did want to say that, as far as I understand the
    regulation, 125 miles an hour on existing track infrastructure
    is high speed. Our Acelas that we are ordering, the new Acelas
    that are delivering--I should not say we have ordered--will
    have a top speed of 186 miles an hour.
        And with the infrastructure improvements that we have
    talked about in our state of good repair, we will be getting to
    Washington, for example, Washington to New York, down to 2
    hours. That speed is an average of 113 miles an hour.
        But there are speeds, top speeds, and there are scheduled
    speeds. So, for example, Tokyo/Nagoya, 35 million people in the
    Greater Tokyo area, 12 million people in Nagoya. It is a 217-
    mile distance between the two. The version of the Shinkansens
    that ride on that track today have top speeds of 185 miles an
    hour and the scheduled speed is 115 because there are stops in
    between, there is the time to ramp up. In fact, most of the
    international routes that I have examined, since coming to
    Amtrak, of high-speed trains in Europe and in Japan have
    schedules that operate somewhere between 49 percent to I think
    a high of about 70 percent of maximum speed.
        Mr. Moulton. Right. But, Mr. Flynn, you are talking about
    average speed, right? Those lines in Japan still go 186 miles
    per hour. The trains still go 186. They just have to--because
    they have so many stops, their average speed is 115.
        And if you actually understood the history here, is that
    America revised down its definition of high-speed rail to make
    these other projects qualify. And I just do not understand why
    we would not be aspiring to be the best in the world, rather
    than be behind literally everyone else when we talk about
    building a transportation technology.
        Mr. Flynn. We are not aspiring to be behind anyone,
    Congressman. Back in 2010 and 2012, we, Amtrak, provided the
    NEC Future Vision for the Northeast Corridor, which called for
    substantially higher speeds. It is really a question of
    funding.
        Mr. Moulton. Well, I can assure you, Mr. Flynn, that is
    exactly the vision that I support. And I think you would find a
    lot of support for that on the committee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. And I agree with the gentleman from
    Massachusetts there. There are many of us on the committee that
    will agree with that.
        Next, we will have Mr. Davis for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to my
    colleagues and witnesses for being here today.
        I have a few questions. I am going to try and run through
    them quick, because I want to hit a few of you here who have
    come.
        Mr. Reininger, you are doing a lot of great work in Florida
    and Nevada and California. First, is there any chance you are
    interested in a project connecting my home State of Illinois
    with any of its neighboring States?
        Mr. Reininger. Well, thank you, Congressman, for your
    question. And I guess we would have to go to our core business
    model and say let's get out the map, let's draw a 300-mile ring
    around Springfield and find the major cities that connect in
    that ring and let's find a road corridor or an infrastructure
    corridor that we can use as a jumping off point and there is a
    solution hidden in there someplace. So we would be happy to
    engage with you on that.
        Mr. Davis. Great. I have ridden on your line in south
    Florida, and I would be glad to sit down with you and your team
    at any time.
        Secondly, our former colleague and chair of this
    subcommittee, Jeff Denham, he would always use Brightline as a
    case study for the development of high-speed rail in the United
    States, as contrasted against the California experience that he
    saw.
        What have other countries done to successfully incentivize
    private-sector investment, and what can we do better to spur
    private investment here in the United States?
        Mr. Reininger. So in our testimony, we have outlined a
    number of those things. I would say probably the most important
    thing that would boost private-sector investment would be to
    help us access efficient long-term capital in one of any number
    of ways. We have suggested that making private-sector entities
    like ourselves eligible for grant programs in the future, when
    we partner with otherwise eligible public-sector entities, is
    one way for the public-sector dollar to be leveraged into more
    than a dollar's worth of outcome. That would be an important
    way to make things happen more quickly.
        We have spoken specifically about expanding the private
    activity bond allocations. We used it effectively. It will
    help. But that alone is not going to be the total solution to
    accessing capital, because that capital market has simply
    limited overall liquidity within it to sort of help broad-based
    numbers of projects like these.
        We have also talked about utilizing low-cost loan programs
    like the RRIF loan in a more efficient way, where it can
    actually be an incentive in the way that it was designed to be
    to get some of these projects over the economic hurdles that
    they face to become viable and self-sustaining of their own
    right.
        There could be other cooperative models that exist that
    parallel some of the things that we see elsewhere, where you
    have unified national host organizations that then tap into
    other providers such as ourselves that will offer returns on
    the public investments but also carry the burden of some of the
    operations and maintenance risks that would otherwise have to
    be carried over the long term. So there are multiple sets of
    ways that access to the capital that gets projects over the
    hurdles that they presently face that would turn more of these
    conversations into reality.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Mr. Reininger. I appreciate
    that. I do want you and the rest of the witnesses here to take
    a look at my One Federal Decision Act, because I know the
    regulatory environment can cause expansion or it can cause a
    lack of expansion in capital products here in the rail industry
    and in passenger rail.
        I do want to go talk to Mr. Giegel. Josh, great to see you
    again, my friend. And you know I would not have you on a
    hearing without being able to harass you over a few things.
        Last year, Secretary Chao announced hyperloop is a
    technology that can compete for discretionary grants. Looking
    at H.R. 2 that passed last Congress, what changes would you
    recommend to ensure companies like yours are given the tools to
    be successful?
        And I have to be quick because I have a question for Mr.
    Flynn, too.
        Mr. Giegel. All right, thank you, Congressman. It is good
    to see you again as well.
        I think shortly, a short answer is that we would like to be
    eligible for the same things that other modes are. I think we
    have heard, you know, some of the limitations of other types of
    technology. And if we are going to reinvest, we should be
    reinvesting in technology that has substantially lower wait
    times, higher speeds, substantially higher level of service
    with lower levels of emissions than anything else.
        So in terms of what the committee can do for us, I think
    ensuring that we are eligible for all those same pots. And if
    they really want to go a step further, let's talk about
    subsidizing--or, sorry, let's talk about creating opportunity
    for new technologies to compete in a very friendly way to
    incentivize the future of transportation.
        Mr. Davis. Thanks, man. I am looking forward to coming to
    Vegas and getting in that pod.
        Mr. Giegel. Sounds good.
        Mr. Davis. Thanks, buddy.
        Mr. Flynn, you know what I am going to ask you about, the
    short shunt issue on the Saluki and Illini Express in central
    Illinois. What is the latest on getting the technology that we
    all know exists and we have been told by Amtrak and by the CN
    that we just have to put it in the trains and it should fix it?
        Mr. Flynn. Good afternoon, Congressman Davis. It is great
    to see you again. We are continuing to work on that with the
    CN. We are experimenting with different types of cars, railway
    cars, that could address that shunt issue, and we would be
    happy to come by and visit with you and give you some more
    detail on that.
        Mr. Davis. I told you guys last time, and I have said this
    to the CN, too, my patience is wearing thin. There is no way to
    talk about high-speed passenger services if we don't have
    reliability on the lines that we have now. And this one is
    abysmal. You guys know that. It was long before you took over.
    I get it. But we got to get the technology, we got to address
    the short shunt issues, otherwise a lot of technological
    advances that we are talking about here are going to either
    overcome the technology that Amtrak currently uses, or we are
    going to be able to work with Amtrak.
        So I do want to sit down with you, sit down with CN, and
    let's get this thing fixed before the next hearing so I can say
    thank you next time.
        Mr. Flynn. Well, we are testing a short shunt device now
    and we will make it a point to come over or virtually brief,
    depending on what is allowed.
        Mr. Davis. I would love to see you in person.
        Mr. Flynn. I would like that, too.
        Mr. Davis. I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. The gentleman yields back. And now it is my
    honor to recognize the gentlelady from Washington, the vice
    chair of the committee, Ms. Strickland.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        As we have heard from multiple witnesses on our first
    panel, the need for Federal investment in high-speed rail is
    clear, with the potential to create thousands of railroad and
    manufacturing jobs, save billions of dollars through reduced
    congestion on the roads. But I want to also point out that
    looking solely at high-speed rail doesn't necessarily solve
    every problem. We need a holistic framework that uses all types
    of modes of rail.
        So I would like to start with you, Mr. Flynn. I would like
    to touch on Amtrak's support for the development of new high-
    speed rail corridors and the role that the current service can
    play.
        So can you tell us, how can investments in conventional
    rail service complement investments in new high-speed rail
    lines like those being considered in my home State of
    Washington?
        Thank you.
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you very much for that question because
    the question itself really, from an Amtrak perspective,
    outlines the strategy for the development of high-speed rail
    corridors, where they make sense across the country.
        If we look to learn lessons from the development in Europe
    and perhaps the development in Japan as well, high-speed rail
    was developed in concert with conventional rail service and
    connected to--as we say on the Northeast Corridor--often
    commuter rail service, so that there is a feed and a
    distribution to and from high-speed operations across those
    high-speed corridors.
        So we believe it absolutely is an integrated approach, and
    why in my remarks and in my written testimony that we have
    submitted to the committee, we have talked about not developing
    one-offs, but developing the integrated approach and building
    more reliable, higher speed conventional services, services at
    110 miles an hour or approaching 125 miles an hour, in new
    corridors or expanding current corridors with more frequency,
    we are building that passenger base. And certainly some of
    those corridors are and must be candidates for high-speed rail
    service.
        And that approach, that developmental approach, is really
    what we have seen in Japan, in Germany, in France, in Spain,
    really where we successful high-speed rail.
        Ms. Strickland. Great. And then one other question about
    this topic. As the Biden administration and Congress pursue
    this aggressive agenda to mitigate climate change, in addition
    to obstacles around timeframe, what do we lawmakers need to
    actually keep in mind on the interoperability between
    conventional rail and high-speed rail?
        Mr. Flynn. Well, I think one thing for us all to keep in
    mind is really time, the time dimension. Because the President
    has set ambitious goals to achieve a 50-percent reduction by
    2030. High-speed rail development, as I noted in my comments,
    at least the European Commission has identified it is a 16-year
    kind of development, on average, once the approvals are in
    place. That is after we have approvals.
        But we have pointed out in our Amtrak Connects US corridor
    strategy, we can have impact now in the near term before 2030
    to those environmental goals. So building out reliable,
    frequent, conventional service is also the predicate to
    building at high-speed where it makes sense, if I can say it
    that way, and also as marching down the road to achieve those
    climate goals in the near term and sustainment.
        Ms. Strickland. Great. And then one more question while I
    have time still. You know, we talk a lot about equity, and that
    means affordability and access. So what are we going to be able
    to do to ensure that families at all income levels are going to
    be able to take advantage of these technologies, for example,
    in high-speed rail?
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you. Well, I would like to just start and
    talk a little bit about Amtrak itself. We are a Government
    corporation. Forty-two percent of Amtrak employees are
    ethnically diverse, and we have a long record of diversity in
    Amtrak employment, and we serve the cities. Our rail networks
    serve the city, and often inner cities, and in many cities the
    Amtrak services really are the only accessible inner-city
    travel options that many people have. And so we are committed
    to equity in transportation. We think Amtrak has a demonstrated
    track record there, but we certainly have more to do, and we
    have a path to do that.
        Ms. Strickland. So I am asking specifically about high-
    speed rail. Do you think there is a way for us to ensure that
    that is going to be accessible and affordable?
        Mr. Flynn. Yes, I do. In fact, I had a conversation with
    Chairman Payne about that several days ago, and if we think
    about our corridor in the Northeast, that certainly is
    accessible. Corridors in and out of a Chicago hub, for example,
    whether it is down into Illinois, into Missouri, across through
    to Michigan, building up higher speed services, the 110- to
    125-mile services in many parts of the country where we simply
    do not serve today, I think absolutely do bring accessibility
    to good quality services that customers will want to take.
        Ms. Strickland. Great, thank you very much. I am out of
    time.
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Now we
    will have Mr. Fitzpatrick for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Flynn, thank you for attending this hearing today. The
    Northeast Corridor runs right through my district. SEPTA's
    commuter rail line is essential to my district, and I
    understand that the Northeast Corridor Commission has
    established a goal of switching from essentially a ``but for''
    liability provision and instead adopt a what is known as a no-
    fault liability provision so that each party takes
    responsibility for their own equipment, their own employees,
    and their own passengers. Currently, the ``but for'' liability
    provision we believe unfairly penalizes SEPTA. No-fault is
    already being used with most commuter rail lines across the
    NEC.
        So my first question is: When do you plan on abiding by the
    commission's policy and adopt a no-fault liability with SEPTA?
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you, sir, for the question. It is not my
    understanding that no-fault is indeed the policy. There are, in
    the Northeast Corridor, the members of the Northeast Corridor,
    the several States, and Amtrak as well, have different views on
    what the right approach should be on liability, and we are
    working to resolve that. Again, we would be happy to sit down
    with you in your office and have a more fulsome discussion on
    the question.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes, that is our understanding, sir,
    regarding the Northeast Corridor Commission and what they are
    establishing. So it is obviously very important to our
    districts. We would appreciate the followup on that sir. That
    would be OK.
        Next question, I would like to ask you about Amtrak's last
    remaining in-house call center, which is right outside of my
    district. Many of my constituents, in fact, work there, and
    they provide superior customer service compared to the
    outsourced work, yet this call center has continuously been
    under threat of outsourcing.
        So my final question for you, sir, will Amtrak consider
    ceasing its outsourcing of customer service jobs and support
    these hard-working women and men?
        Mr. Flynn. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman. I
    don't believe that the call center is under constant treat.
    Some employees may feel that or may perceive that, but we have
    already made commitments to maintain the call center, in
    effect, to maintain the work at the call center, and they have
    done just a great job. Everyone at that call center, along with
    all our frontline employees, have done a great job of serving
    our Amtrak customers during this pandemic, and we have
    communicated that.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Well, I appreciate hearing that, sir, and
    I will communicate that to them. So you are opposed to
    outsourcing?
        Mr. Flynn. We had--the company had implemented outsourcing
    as a backup in peak demand periods, but we have made the
    commitment to that customer service center and we will keep
    that commitment.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. Final question to Mr.
    Rogers, Maglev. Mr. Rogers, I understand we have a mutual
    friend, Mr. Jerren, who wanted me to say hello.
        But my question for you, sir. First of all, it is an
    exciting time for your company. It will be a great timesaver
    for passengers on the NEC. Can you tell me how your company
    will go about hiring crews needed to build this project?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes, we really look at workforce development as
    integrated, and so we talked about our four pillars, the
    diversity, equity, inclusion with union jobs, and jobs, and we
    are going to have 161,000 job-years. So that is a big number
    that we have to do.
        So one of the things is we have worked closely with unions.
    In 2017 we signed an agreement with North America's Building
    Trades Unions. We built the project under a project labor
    agreement. We have been working with the various unions that
    will be creating training centers in diverse communities, so
    that is part of it as well. And so that means that the unions,
    as well as business groups and civic groups, are all working
    together because of the large nature of this opportunity.
        And so we have been endorsed not only by the Building
    Trades Unions but also the carpenters, the laborers union,
    Baltimore-DC Metro Building and Construction Trades Council. So
    we think we really try to approach these things, climate
    change, diversity, jobs, workforce development, and union
    participation as really one, and working it all with everyone
    sitting at the table.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, and thank you for
    your commitment to PLAs. Very, very important as far as quality
    of work and therefore safety issues, so we appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Next we will have Ms. Titus for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just address my question to Mr. Reininger. You know I am
    a big fan of the project Brightline West. I have been working
    to try to get some kind of speed train, passenger train service
    between here and Los Angeles for many years. So I am excited
    that it is coming. I think it will bring more visitors to my
    district and help the economy during these difficult times,
    take cars off of I-15, improve air quality.
        But any time we talk about infrastructure, we also have to
    focus on the jobs. This is going to create some jobs and high-
    quality jobs as you construct this project. So I would ask you,
    as you move closer to the construction phase, what are your
    relationships with labor? How are you talking to the workers
    who are both going to build this and operate it once it is
    finished?
        Mr. Reininger. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your
    question, and certainly thank you for all the support that you
    have provided us along the journey that we are underway with.
    You are exactly right. The investment that we are planning on
    making in Brightline West is going to create an enormous amount
    of job growth and activity in your area, some 40,000
    construction jobs, we think, will be generated by the
    investment that we are prepared to make there.
        With respect to labor, I think there would be a couple of
    important points that I would make. First of all, we are in the
    midst of negotiations of construction contracts to begin to
    initiate the construction work that we just spoke of, and in
    the course of those negotiations, our preferred contractor is
    also in the midst of discussions with labor around a project
    labor agreement that would be put in place. Our understanding
    is from both sides that those discussions are going very, very
    well. We are very supportive of those discussions and anxious
    for that to come to an amicable conclusion.
        In addition, we made a recommendation as a part of the
    testimony here that private-sector entities be allowed to be
    eligible applicants for some grant programs in the future.
    Without any specific regard to a particular idea, we put that
    forward as a general idea.
        But before we did that, we explored the idea with organized
    labor, and we have found them to be supportive of that proposed
    legislative action, and in fact, we have shared the
    correspondence that we have received from them with the
    Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee
    staff here of this committee. So we have been engaged from the
    beginning here, and we understand the importance and the
    priorities that you are describing here.
        Lastly, I would tell you that our Florida operation, our
    first phase of our Florida operation, was built in complete
    compliance with the FRA's Buy America program, despite the fact
    that we didn't receive any Federal funding that would have
    otherwise mandated those requirements. So we are respectful of
    and supportive of the initiatives that you are referring to.
        Ms. Titus. That is great. You know, just to carry this a
    little further, you mentioned some things that we can do to
    better assist with the financing. You mentioned these grants,
    we talked about the bonds. Is there anything this subcommittee
    needs to be doing additionally to make that financing easier to
    be sure this project gets underway sooner rather than later,
    and we start to build back better?
        Mr. Reininger. Sure. The specific--the recommendations that
    we put on the table, you know, regarding eligibility for
    grants, the expansion of the PABs program, some revamping of
    the application of the loan programs, are all going to be very
    direct, very actionable things that this subcommittee would be
    very helpful in.
        Beyond that, we have spoken, in under written testimony,
    about curtailing some of the discretion that is applied to some
    of the approval processes in the regulatory framework that will
    help otherwise increase confidence in the processes that we
    undergo, and also reduce what was oftentimes unnecessary time
    delays which translate into additional costs to the project.
        So we have provided a few, what we think are very
    actionable, very practical things that this subcommittee can do
    to help us do what we think we are doing, which is breaking the
    inertia that has limited progress in this space over the last
    several decades.
        Ms. Titus. Well, I am excited to hear that and work with
    you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this subcommittee.
    Representative Moulton, I know, is interested in this topic to
    try to get some of those things accomplished. I yield back.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Now we
    will have Mr. Westerman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Crawford, and to all the witnesses. This is very interesting
    testimony that I have listened to it and I have read your
    testimony, and probably a lot more questions than I can get in
    in 5 minutes.
        But Mr. de Leon, you testified that the development costs
    of the hyperloop is only $54 million per mile compared to the
    $150 million to $200 million per mile for other modes.
        Now, as an engineer serving in Congress, when I hear only
    $54 million a mile, that raises an eyebrow, and I even checked
    with my State department of transportation, and they tell me
    they can build urban interstate for $9.7 million per mile,
    rural interstate for $7.5 million per mile, and an interstate
    through the mountains for $11.45 million per mile.
        So would you clarify what you are talking about when you
    say only $54 million per mile? And what are the other modes
    that are $150 million to $200 million?
        Mr. de Leon. Yes, well, in all the analysis that we have
    done and the analysis that we did in the Great Lakes, this was
    the cost, you know, the average cost that we have, you know,
    for developing all the infrastructure and all the systems.
        Every time that we have done a comparison, we are looking
    at numbers that are around 30 percent to 40 percent less than
    high-speed rail, and that is because hyperloop [inaudible] has
    smaller infrastructure and much more simple infrastructure.
        And of course the cost of the high-speed rail depends also
    a lot in the country. In Spain, it was, like, $20 million per
    kilometer. In France it was $32 million per kilometer. In
    California, we are talking about $150 million per mile. So it
    depends on the country.
        You cannot have a real, clear cost, you know, until you do
    a real feasibility study and you analyze the territory, the
    geography, and everything that is needed to [inaudible].
        What we have seen in our Great Lakes feasibility study is
    that these numbers make a lot of sense, that you have a recap
    on the investment around 25 years and----
        [Andres de Leon, chief executive officer, Hyperloop
    Transportation Technologies, submitted the following post-
    hearing supplement to his preceding remarks:]

        The Great Lakes Hyperloop Feasibility Study, prepared by NOACA and
    their independent transportation economist consultant TEMS, used
    standard industry practices and supplier and contractor estimates to
    arrive at the project cost of $54 million/mile for hyperloop. This cost
    estimate includes 28% in soft costs (engineering, design, insurance,
    escalation, etc.) and 30% additional unassigned contingency on all
    costs. Further, infrastructure and transportation operators will see a
    positive return on investment in 15 years.
        AECOM, an engineering and construction company not affiliated with
    HyperloopTT, estimated $150 million/mile as the 2020 estimated cost of
    the California High Speed Train project. The estimate of $200 million/
    mile (actually $256 million/mile) was published by Maryland DOT and NE
    Maglev in their recently released EIS for the DC to Baltimore SC Maglev
    project. (See Appendix G.9--Capital and Construction Costs Memorandum,
    dated March 31, 2020). This estimate does not include Systems, Right of
    Way, Vehicles, Professional Services, or Contingencies.

        Mr. Westerman. So you are saying it is--I've got to keep
    moving on, but I wanted to--Mr. Reininger, what is your
    experience on costs for high-speed rail per mile?
        Mr. Reininger. So I can point to our two examples. Our
    real-world example in Florida, we have invested about $16
    million a mile for the 235-mile system that we built there. And
    our Brightline West program is going to be executed for about
    $31 million a mile.
        Mr. Westerman. OK. So that still surprises me that it is
    that much per mile, but you built them so you know exactly what
    it costs.
        And as we look at new technologies like hyperloop, I do see
    a lot of advantages for that because it is a small footprint.
    The pods operating in a vacuum. I have had a chance to go out
    to Las Vegas and visit the test site and I know that there has
    been a lot of great work that you guys are doing up there,
    Josh.
        I know you could probably build hyperloop on a highway
    interstate median. It could go underground, it could go
    underwater, it could go above the ground. You don't have any
    grade crossings, you don't have to worry about animals getting
    in the way, it is averse to weather.
        But I also understand that the technology is not as proven,
    but outside of that, what would prohibit--I mean if you are
    looking at high-speed rail or mass transit, why wouldn't we be
    looking at hyperloop as the first technology to look at, or the
    future technology?
        Mr. Aguilar, you might take a shot at that, and Mr. Flynn
    as well.
        Mr. de Leon. Excuse me, is the question for me?
        Mr. Aguilar. No, for me, I believe. I would start by
    saying, you know, short-term needs need short-term solutions.
    And as I said in my testimony, our market here down in Texas is
    already congested, very congested. It needs solutions to be
    offered.
        Our cost per mile, by the way, is about $62 million a mile
    for the civil infrastructure, but that is because we have built
    a system that has 50 percent of this in viaducts. And this is
    to address concerns to reduce impact on landowners and so on.
        But that is the main reason why.
        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Flynn?
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you, Congressman Westerman.
        From an Amtrak perspective, what we have talked about is
    investing, really, in both conventional and high-speed railways
    we have today on the Northeast Corridor. And we have the
    opportunity to expand higher speed conventional rail and high-
    speed rail in certain corridors in the U.S.
        Our corridors also serve commuter trains and, for example,
    if you look at our Northeast Corridor, there are 2,100 trains a
    day on that Northeast Corridor, and we are part of that, and
    that includes commuter rails as well and our Acela high-speed
    train and there are also 60 freight trains a day on that
    Northeast Corridor.
        So I think it is a very different--well, certainly a very
    different technology and certainly a very different
    application. And what we have talked about is the ability to
    enhance and expand and serve a greater part of America within
    the next decade on network that exists today that requires some
    upgrading, but certainly achievable in that timeframe with the
    benefits of mobility benefits and I would argue environmental
    benefits as well.
        Mr. Westerman. All right, I knew I would have more
    questions than time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And I will
    now turn the gavel over to the vice chair of the subcommittee,
    the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Strickland. You have the
    gavel.
        Ms. Strickland [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We have three Members who are scheduled to speak, so at
    this time, I would like to recognize Representative Garcia for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairwoman Strickland.
    Mr. Flynn, in your testimony, you laid out four corridors in
    Amtrak's national network that receive significant investments
    from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, several
    of which run right through Chicago.
        Can you share with the committee what kind of further
    improvements we can anticipate with the type of investment
    proposed in President Biden's American Jobs Plan, and would
    Amtrak consider additional improvement in corridors that run
    through the Chicagoland area?
        Mr. Flynn. Thank you for your question, Congressman Garcia.
        Let me start with the last part of your question as to
    whether Amtrak would consider additional investment. The answer
    is absolutely yes. And our Amtrak Connects US strategy which
    talks about new corridor services and expanded corridor
    services, it addresses exactly that. And certainly Chicago is a
    key component, a key node, in the Amtrak network. So that is
    about services from Chicago into Madison, in Milwaukee. We are
    talking about expanding--that is our Hiawatha Service--
    expanding to multiple daily services through to Minneapolis-St.
    Paul.
        I talked to Congressman Davis, we are talking about
    expansions from Chicago into St. Louis on those several lines,
    the ability to connect to Detroit, Michigan, and points in
    between. So Chicago is a very important part of our network as
    you know, and certainly a key part of our vision of how we can
    expand. More rail services on routes that we have today, and
    new passenger routes that we have yet to serve.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And you wrote at length in your
    written testimony about why the U.S. has fallen so far behind
    in high-speed rail connectivity, you also mentioned how
    existing funding programs like CRISI, the RAISE program which
    we previously knew as the TIGER or BUILD. In your words,
    existing funding streams ``would not make a dent in the cost of
    constructing even a single high-speed rail line.''
        What are some policy solutions the committee should
    consider to make sure an adequate source of funding exists to
    begin to build the framework for a high-speed rail network, and
    does intercity rail need its own dedicated funding stream?
        Mr. Flynn. Well, the answer to your question, Congressman
    Garcia, is in your statement.
        At the beginning of our hearing today before the first
    panel spoke, Chairman DeFazio talked about funding, talked
    about the need for transportation infrastructure. One of the
    other witnesses, former Deputy Secretary Porcari, talked about
    funding and talked about the need for a trust fund structure or
    trust fund-like structure, so that we can have dedicated,
    predictable funding for these kinds of projects that are going
    to occur over a very long period of time.
        When we think about NEPA and the other permitting processes
    that take place, and then ultimately into construction, on many
    major projects we are talking a decade or more. So without the
    visibility and the predictability and the certainty of funding,
    these projects are all affected, they ultimately become more
    high cost, and they take longer than they should.
        So if I were to recommend one policy action, creating a
    trust fund or trust fund-like structure for intercity passenger
    rail would be key.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. And finally before my
    time runs out, you discussed the reduction in greenhouse gasses
    when the Northeast Corridor was largely electrified. Are there
    other corridors in the country that would be strong candidates
    for electrification? What kind of market and policy obstacles
    remain in further electrification of our intercity passenger
    rail network?
        Mr. Flynn. Yes, there certainly are other corridors that
    would lend themselves to electrification. There will be
    requirements for density, of service, and key population
    centers.
        I talked earlier about our new intercity train sets that we
    have. We are placing an order for finalizing that order. Those
    intercity train sets are dual mode so the locomotive can go
    from electric to diesel at a much more fuel-efficient diesel in
    terms of greenhouse gas emissions that are created per
    passenger-mile by those diesels.
        So there are interim steps that advance us along the
    President's goal to that 50-percent reduction in greenhouse
    gasses. And passenger rail is certainly one of those vehicles
    to provide the mobility the country needs, but to do it in the
    most environmentally sustainable way.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you so much. I yield back,
    Madam Chair.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you. I would now like to recognize
    Representative LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, I am hitting the right buttons. Thank you,
    Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Well, certainly an interesting
    conversation today. I have had to dip in and out because of
    other things going on, but as a California Member with the
    issue with high-speed rail in our own State, and I'll join some
    others and say, look, I am not against the concept, and I think
    the Northeast Corridor is our best chance for success on that
    and other areas as we look at them.
        But when I see where Texas is having a hard time, when
    Texas is having difficulty with their abilities to streamline
    and get through a process, how the heck is California going to
    do it at 50 percent higher prices for everything, our
    regulatory climate that is a lot more negative to doing any--
    and this is, you know, scored as an environmental project, but
    we still can't get very far.
        As a State legislator, I was very interested in this and
    hearing legislation on the high-speed rail project here, trying
    to link L.A. and San Francisco with supposed spurs to
    Sacramento and San Diego as well. And it has fallen far short
    of what the voters were told when it was placed on the ballot
    for them to decide by a narrow margin, 52 to 48 percent, years
    ago.
        And so legislation I had was, two of them, was to say stop
    spending until you have a plan, because they didn't have a plan
    for the route, how they were going to line up the property.
    They still don't have the property, and this is 12 years after
    it passed, and they are way behind on all their deadlines. And
    later on they told us, well, this is going to provide 1 million
    jobs. They sat there with a straight face and said 1 million
    jobs. Finally, we got them in committee a few years after, they
    said, well that means 1 million job-years.
        Well, the way it is going, that is starting to look like 1
    million years because they are so far behind and the price has
    at least tripled and they have heard in earlier testimony they
    are going to need many more billions of dollars from the
    Federal Government to continue going along.
        And so far the Federal Government has committed to a total
    of about $3.3 billion under the Obama era ARRA Act, and the
    State hasn't even put its own money forward. But so it just
    continues to be a frustration.
        So to hear a possibility of a high-speed rail line in
    California that might work that Brightline is working on, the
    Los Angeles to Las Vegas route, that had been referred to as
    the Desert Express before, and some good work had got done
    towards that, but what I need to bring in as a question here to
    Mr. Reininger here is that--I used to also chair back in 2016
    to 2018 in the Natural Resources Committee, the Subcommittee on
    Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs in the U.S., and so
    we have concerns there that the so far undefined routes through
    the area could be going through some burial areas and cultural
    sites of their ancestral lands, that hasn't quite gone through
    what's known as a section 106 review process.
        And so I want to hear from those on the panel who have an
    interest, especially Mr. Reininger, what can we do to allay
    this concern because I don't think you want to have the
    negative that is going to come from this later, and we don't
    want to be doing things that aren't sensitive to taking care of
    those issues.
        Like in my north part of the State, we have had levee
    repair processes that were important, but some of those go
    through old Tribal sites and such, and there are people, you
    know, that were buried there and such, but working with the
    Tribes they are able to--you know, we took some elbowing of
    getting the Army Corps of Engineers to pay attention to that,
    but the Tribes are very forward with us trying to say, hey, we
    want to help get this done, but we just need to have proper
    respect done for these old sites. Same thing here.
        What can we do better to allay some of the concerns of the
    Tribes that are on the route there? And the cultural areas, the
    burial areas that might be--whatever it is--and get a proper
    review that doesn't take forever----
        Ms. Strickland. Representative LaMalfa, we are going to run
    out of time here soon, so can we allow the witness to----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes----
        Ms. Strickland [continuing]. Answer the question?
        Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. I will stop there. I will stop
    there.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Yes.
        Mr. Reininger. So I think that was pointed towards me.
    Thank you for the question, and I will try to be as brief as I
    can because I know time is running out here, but clearly, we
    respect the process that is in place.
        The environmental review processes are well established.
    The kinds of investigations that are necessary are clear, and
    we are following those processes completely in everything that
    we are doing, but the Tribes involved here are definitely a
    stakeholder that would have a voice in the process, and we
    encourage the continued engagement with them to execute the
    process under the guidelines that are in place by the
    regulatory frameworks.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is seemingly not paying enough
    attention to section 106, as it is titled, and they are not
    getting the results, so I don't think you want ultimately to go
    to a worse outcome, but who knows, it could cause litigation,
    because it really hasn't been addressed from everything I have
    understood. The FRA needs to be helpful on this, too, instead
    of just trying to push through on something that could cause
    legal issues or a lot of hard feelings later. So I would love
    for a commitment to take a closer look at that.
        Mr. Reininger. Absolutely.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you very much.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Strickland. Our next speaker is Representative Eddie
    Bernice Johnson. You have 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
    I thank the committee leadership for calling this hearing.
        I was very pleased to have Mr. Aguilar from Texas Central
    with us today, and really quite aware of all the activity and
    all the attention that has been given to all the people along
    this whole route, Dallas to Houston or Houston to Dallas. And
    today, 16 million trips are made between north Texas and the
    Greater Houston region annually. Ninety percent of these trips
    are made my road, leading to significant congestion along
    Interstate 45 between these two regions. Travel time along this
    corridor can exceed 5 years, and I expect it to exceed 6.5
    hours by 2035.
        With the economy of Greater Houston and north Texas
    expected to grow at 1.5 percent per year until 2050, almost
    twice the national average, trips between these cities are
    projected to top just over 34 million journeys in 2050. This
    growth will undermine mobility in the area, degrading our air
    quality, impacting roadway safety, and stifling economic
    growth.
        Preventing the negative impacts of this project congestion
    is one of the reasons why I am a strong proponent of the Texas
    Central project. It will provide a faster, safer, and more
    environmentally friendly mobility option in connecting these
    two economic giants of Texas. It will also be the first true
    high-speed rail system in the U.S., covering 240 miles in 90
    minutes. So this project will not only create a large number of
    jobs for constituents, it will also provide a new 21st-century
    mobility option between the Nation's largest metropolitan
    areas, Dallas and Houston.
        While this project is vital in the area that I represent,
    it is critical to transforming the Nation's transportation
    network and strengthening our economic competitiveness. It is
    truly one that ought to be considered.
        And I am delighted that Mr. Aguilar, the president, is here
    today, and I know that we have heard a lot of testimony from
    him. I have been a witness that they have worked this entire
    route from Dallas to Houston, or Houston to Dallas, dealing
    with individuals, property owners, and all the like.
        Now what I would like to ask Mr. Aguilar is whether or not
    they are really committed in taking any kind of steps to be
    sure that it will be also inclusive. We know that this is going
    to be rural, lots of minorities and women along the way, and it
    will take a lot of workplace training.
        So I would like him to comment on some of the things that
    have been planned for this route as we begin to take this
    extraordinary step to improve travel and the environment.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Congresswoman, and yes, absolutely,
    you have my commitment and our company's commitment to that.
    And as I said, we started working with both the city of Dallas
    and the city of Houston in establishing the goals and set the
    targets for inclusiveness. We also added rural businesses as
    part of the definition of inclusion. That was intentional,
    ensuring that we have a broad impact along the whole route. And
    it was as a result of all that planning that we are including
    specific targets to each of the contracts that we sign.
        And it has not been easy, I have to be very honest with
    you. This is not normal practice for the industry. And we have
    had to ensure that everybody buys into the program. And by the
    way, all contractors are. And that is the benefit of executing
    this in a concerted way. So it is the planning, and it is the
    coordination with public officials, and aligning in interests,
    and knowing that this is a priority for all.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. I have
    been aware of a lot of the activity. I have participated in
    some of it. I look forward and hope that I can live to see the
    fruition of this program.
        Madam Chair, do I have any more time?
        Ms. Strickland. I am going to use privilege and give you
    about 20 more seconds.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK, well, thank you very much. I know
    that the city of Dallas is very interested in [inaudible]
    downtown terminal, and I just wanted a little comment on that
    from Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, we are actually coordinating in the
    planning of that plan, which actually started with coordinating
    meetings at the end of last month. It would be located right
    across our station, and the idea would be to connect directly
    to DART there and ensure that the transfer of passengers to
    Union Station as well is included so that we are physically
    connected to the rest of the network.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, and thank you
    Madam Chair. This is my 28th year--29th year on this committee,
    and my major goal when I started was an intermodal, seamless
    transportation system around the north Texas area and I think
    this is one of the things that will complete it. Thank you very
    much, and I yield back.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Well, everyone, this concludes our hearing for today. I,
    again, want to say thank you to each of our witnesses for this
    long hearing and for your testimony today.
        I am going to ask for unanimous consent on two items.
    Number one, that the hearing record of today's hearing remain
    open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
    any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. I am
    also going to ask for the unanimous consent that the record
    remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
    information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
    the record of today's hearing.
        Without object, so ordered.
        The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
    Materials now stands adjourned. Thank you everyone.
        [Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                          Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Payne, and thank you to our witnesses for being
    here today.
        In certain circumstances, passenger rail can benefit our
    transportation network.
        In that sense, we must support new technology that increases the
    safety and efficiency of these systems while meeting the transportation
    demands of Americans.
        How best to meet the freight and passenger rail needs of the U.S.
    economy and consumers is essential as we consider rail investments in a
    surface transportation bill.
        We must be mindful of how we spend taxpayer dollars and consider
    changes in travel habits and preferences in a transportation landscape
    that has been altered by COVID-19.
        Allocating exorbitant levels of funding on projects that fail to
    account for actual consumer demand and future costs will only create
    unnecessary new burdens.
        We should consider all our options, including leveraging private
    rail investments and supporting existing grant programs that have
    proven effective in maintaining and upgrading our rail network.
        I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about these
    opportunities.
        Thank you, Chair Payne. I yield back.

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress
                          from the State of Tennessee
        Thank you, Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Crawford, for holding
    this important hearing today.
        Passenger rail is an essential connection for millions of
    Americans. Expanding this service would connect more communities to
    educational and economic opportunities as well as recreational
    activities that may not be accessible via air travel or to someone who
    does not have access to a vehicle. Today, many major metro areas have
    little or no access to passenger rail service. In my home state,
    Memphis is only one of two cities served by passenger rail. With the
    loss of essential air service in much of the country, including rural
    and midsize communities, passenger rail fills the void and provides
    essential connections to jobs and services in nearby metro areas, and
    convenient access to the rest of the country by rail or major airport
    hubs.
        Passenger rail is also an essential tool in responding to climate
    change and improving economic and racial equity. People who cannot
    afford or are unable to drive rely on passenger rail for jobs,
    services, visiting family, and more. Connecting more Americans to each
    other via passenger rail will provide a low emission alternative to
    driving and flying that can decrease greenhouse gas emissions and
    support our nation's climate change goals. It also provides a more
    cost-effective and accessible mode of travel to vulnerable populations
    in all corners of the country.
        Additionally, while no mode of transportation is 100% safe, high-
    speed rail has the potential to save lives and reduce traffic
    fatalities. Consider that last year, more than 42,000 people died on
    America's roads and highways--including 1,231 deaths in Tennessee.
    High-speed rail and intercity passenger rail are safer forms of travel
    than automobile usage and could reduce the number of transportation
    deaths and injuries in Tennessee.
        That is why I plan to introduce the Interstate Rail Compacts
    Advancement Act of 2021, which would create multi-state passenger rail
    commissions, such as the successful Southern Rail Commission, to
    promote regional coordination and sustain a vision of passenger rail
    service across America. Most intercity passenger rail serves a multi-
    state region, with passengers regularly traveling across state lines.
    However, regional collaboration to support passenger rail service is
    only as effective as coordination between Governors, State Departments
    of Transportation, and other relevant state and local officials and
    entities. By incentivizing states to create multi-state rail
    commissions, we can improve regional collaboration to support passenger
    rail service. In my home state, there is particular interest to connect
    Memphis to Nashville, which could hopefully be extended to Atlanta,
    Georgia. The ability to create a multi-state passenger rail commission
    would undoubtedly help to make this proposal a reality.
        With upcoming surface transportation reauthorization legislation,
    our Subcommittee has a significant opportunity to make meaningful
    investments to promote intercity passenger rail development and in turn
    reduce the carbon footprint of the transportation sector, reduce
    congestion which is already returning to pre-pandemic levels, create
    better job opportunities and expand access to affordable and equitable
    housing opportunities. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
    this Subcommittee to examine ways in which we can facilitate increased
    passenger rail opportunities for Americans across the country,
    including passage of my bill, the Interstate Rail Compacts Advancement
    Act.
        Thank you again, Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Crawford, for
    holding this hearing today.

      Letter of May 20, 2021, from Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO,
    American Public Transportation Association, Submitted for the Record by
                             Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
                                                          May 20, 2021.
    The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on Transportation and
            Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
            DC 20510.
    The Honorable Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on Transportation and
            Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
            DC 20510.
    The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr.,
    Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, House
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 589 Ford House
            Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
    The Honorable Rick Crawford,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, House
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 592 Ford House
            Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Payne, and
    Ranking Member Crawford:
        On behalf of America's $74 billion public transportation industry,
    which directly employs more than 435,000 people and supports millions
    of private-sector jobs, I am pleased to submit this testimony for the
    record for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearing
    on ``When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and
    Challenges of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies'' on May
    6, 2021.
        First, we thank you for holding this important and timely hearing
    on the future of high-performance passenger rail. APTA has recently
    endorsed ``A Vision for Connecting America's Urban and Rural
    Communities with Passenger Rail''. APTA believes that the
    transportation investments of today will be the foundation of a
    forward-looking strategy to establish safe, reliable, efficient,
    integrated, and climate-friendly alternatives for moving people.
    America has an opportunity to build a high-performance rail network to
    position us to overcome our economic challenges and compete in the
    global marketplace in the coming years.
        Passenger rail is an underutilized mode, and ripe to connect with
    national and local transportation networks and rural areas with high-
    performance corridor services. These services will relieve congestion
    on highways and airspace and provide efficient, accessible, equitable,
    and environmental-friendly mobility options. New and reinvigorated rail
    corridors will have multiple users and would connect seamlessly with
    Amtrak and local and regional public transit services. Development of a
    national network and national rail plan should be guided by federal,
    state, and regional planning efforts, and coordinated with the various
    state-supported intercity passenger rail corridors.
        Dedicated funding for passenger rail is critical to realize these
    goals. To that end, APTA strongly urges Congress and the Biden
    Administration to establish a robust Passenger Rail Trust Fund
    supported through new revenues, other than revenues dedicated to the
    Highway Trust Fund, to provide long-term certainty necessary for
    planning and funding multi-year projects and state-of-good-repair
    investments. Leveraging these funding streams with federal financing
    programs will further facilitate project delivery.
        Currently, there is no dedicated, predictable funding program for
    passenger rail projects. States and other entities seeking to build or
    improve passenger rail must rely on several competitive grant programs
    to fund their significant capital needs. A dedicated Passenger Rail
    Trust Fund, together with significantly higher passenger rail
    investment, would provide long-term certainty and help fund critical
    projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our passenger rail
    systems today and in the future.
        In addition, access to freight railroad rights-of-way is a
    significant issue to ensure effective implementation of a federal high-
    performance rail program. Appropriate incentives need to be provided to
    host railroads with the expectation that they will accommodate the
    public purpose and necessity of facilitating growth of passenger rail.
    Finally, the private sector should be offered opportunities to partner
    with the public sector in developing high-performance rail corridors.
        We believe that seizing the opportunity to make these critical
    investments in passenger rail now will also help the nation meet its
    renewed commitments to racial and social equity and to addressing the
    global climate crisis. Enclosed is a copy of APTA's Vision for
    Connecting America's Urban and Rural Communities with Passenger Rail.
        Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                             Paul P. Skoutelas,
         President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association.

    Encl.
      A Vision for Connecting America's Urban and Rural Communities with
                                 Passenger Rail
                                  may 5, 2021
        The Proposition: What does America stand to gain from a substantial
    investment in high-performance passenger rail? What makes passenger
    rail best suited to generate positive, transformational change at this
    moment in time?
        The Need and the Opportunity: The transportation investments of
    today will be the foundation of a forward-looking strategy to establish
    safe, reliable, efficient, integrated, and climate-friendly
    alternatives for moving people. America has an opportunity to learn
    from international success stories, and to build a high-performance
    rail network to position us to overcome our economic challenges and
    compete in the global marketplace in the coming years.
        The Vision: For the past 60 years, Americans have relied
    overwhelmingly on highways and airlines for travel between regions.
    Passenger rail is the underutilized mode, and ripe to complement these
    networks with high-performance corridor services linking cities 300-600
    miles apart, while connecting with national and local transportation
    networks and to rural areas. These services will relieve congestion on
    highways and airspace and provide efficient, accessible, equitable and
    environmental-friendly mobility options.
        New and reinvigorated rail corridors will have multiple users and
    would connect seamlessly with local and regional public transit
    services and airports. Hubs will be in downtown business districts,
    generating jobs, income, and investment around stations, while
    providing convenient access to destinations and fostering community
    livability. Moreover, federal grants should prioritize alternative
    power technologies for equipment and facilities, including
    electrification of lines, to advance passenger rail's contribution to
    our nation's efforts to address climate change.
        Amtrak's national network will be bolstered through investments
    that will address its repair backlog, modernize Northeast Corridor
    critical infrastructure, serve communities across the country with
    frequent and reliable service, and connect new city pairs. Development
    of the national network and a national rail plan will be guided by
    federal, state, and regional planning efforts, and coordinated with the
    various state-supported intercity passenger rail corridors. Private
    initiatives will be encouraged and supported as they proceed under
    different business models in select corridors.
        Access to freight railroad rights-of-way is a significant issue to
    ensure effective implementation of a federal high-performance rail
    program. Appropriate incentives need to be provided to host railroads
    with the expectation that they will accommodate the public purpose and
    necessity of facilitating growth of passenger rail. Federal policies
    must encourage growth of both passenger and freight rail operations,
    recognizing the substantive public benefits to both networks.
        Innovation and new technologies will be embraced as new ways are
    developed to enhance operations and better serve customers and
    communities. Consideration of new and evolving technologies is ongoing
    and must not distract from the immediate need for investment in state-
    of-the-art high-performance rail.
        The Program: APTA urges Congress and the Biden Administration to
    establish a Passenger Rail Trust Fund supported through new revenues,
    other than revenues dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, to provide
    long-term certainty necessary for planning and funding multi-year
    projects and state-of-good-repair investments. Leveraging these funding
    streams with federal financing programs will further facilitate project
    delivery.
        High-speed corridors will be selected based on criteria, with the
    purpose of getting several corridors in operation in the near-term.
    These corridors would provide models that could be emulated in other
    regions of the country. Projects should be advanced using progressive
    program delivery and regulatory oversight procedures to facilitate
    efficient, multi-year program implementation, as public safety and
    fiscal stewardship is assured.
        The private sector should be offered opportunities to partner with
    the public sector. Where appropriate, corridor initiatives may
    competitively procure operation and maintenance services for passenger
    rail operation, in a fair and transparent manner. To ensure fair
    competition, all competing companies will comply with all federal
    railroad and other relevant national labor laws. These procurements can
    provide incentives for additional private investment.
        Federal funding for research and development will enable the
    industry to partner with colleges and universities to better address
    future workforce capacity needs to design, construct, operate, and
    manage the passenger rail network of the future, and to pursue problem-
    solving research and innovation.
        The Outcomes and Benefits: Robust investment in America's passenger
    rail networks will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner,
    and economic and social opportunities more equitable--benefits that
    will sustain their transformative power over time.
        By reducing travel times, a state-of-the-art high-performance rail
    network will bring the economic activity of megaregions closer
    together. This shrinkage of geography effectively enlarges labor and
    business markets, leading to more economic activity, tax base growth,
    and new linkages among businesses, suppliers, employees, and consumers.
        Federal investment in passenger rail will stimulate the U.S.
    economy, creating good-paying manufacturing, construction, and
    professional jobs across America, including the critical clean energy
    jobs of the future.
        Throughout American history, every successful transportation
    improvement has resulted from committed federal, local, and state
    leaders, along with private entities and citizens, who share a vision
    and possess the energy to turn that vision into reality. It is time to
    stop envying what other countries have. It is time to stop asking why
    we cannot do that. It is time to implement a high-performance rail
    network in America.

       ``Cascadia High Speed Rail Business Prospectus,'' September 2018,
               Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
        The 40-page business prospectus is retained in committee files and
    is available online at https://cascadiahighspeedrail.com/wp-content/
    uploads/2021/04/Cascadia-HSR-Corridor-Business-Prospectus-2018-09.pdf.

       Testimony of Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager, Coalition for
       Smarter Growth, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
        Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter
    Growth, the leading organization in the Washington, DC region
    advocating for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, and transit-oriented
    communities as the most sustainable and equitable way to grow and
    provide opportunities for all. We have strong partnerships with
    business, conservation, and affordable housing organizations, and
    received the 2017 Regional Partnership Award from the Metropolitan
    Washington Council of Governments.
        We have been strong supporters of major rail improvements in the
    Northeast corridor, but are convinced that the proposed Baltimore-
    Washington Superconducting Magnetic Levitation (SCMAGLEV) project is
    the wrong technology and design for the Washington-Baltimore corridor
    and the NE Corridor as a whole. Therefore, we urge you to not provide
    federal financial support to this project. Instead, we urge significant
    investments in both the Amtrak and commuter rail improvement programs.
        The project would have a negative impact on racial and social
    equity. Construction would plow through majority Black Prince George's
    County, but the residents of Prince George's County would not be able
    to take advantage of the project, since the technology and design speed
    are such that there will only be stops in DC, at BWI Airport, and at
    Penn Station in Baltimore. Environmental Justice (EJ) communities would
    be disproportionately impacted, with 80 percent of impacted parcels
    located in EJ communities.
        Furthermore, the high projected cost of a one-way ticket sends a
    signal that this project is for the wealthiest white-collar commuters,
    not those who will suffer from the damage wrought by the project or
    those who need more accessible, frequent, and affordable transit. A $60
    ticket for the SCMAGLEV would be about seven times more than an
    existing MARC commuter rail ticket for the same trip ($8) or existing
    Amtrak Acela ticket ($46).
        We are also concerned about the project's negative effect on
    existing taxpayer investments in transit. The project is already
    diverting attention from repairing and improving our existing MARC and
    Amtrak infrastructure. If public funding is required for the Maglev, it
    could divert hundreds of millions of dollars in addition to fare
    revenue lost due to reduced ridership on Amtrak and MARC.
        The Maglev is a potential public-private partnership, and recent
    experience with P3s in Maryland and other states suggests that public
    funding will be required. Given that Maglev is a multi-billion dollar
    technology yet to be implemented anywhere in the U.S., this project
    could require significant public funding.
        The limited time savings is also not worth the cost and risk. The
    Acela Express between DC and Baltimore currently takes 30 minutes.
    While Maglev would cut time spent on the train in half, it doesn't
    account for time spent getting to the station. The average total trip
    would go from 90 minutes to 75 minutes, which is not worth the risk,
    nor the costs to equity and environmental quality.
        Investing in the Maryland MARC and Amtrak NE Corridor expansion
    plans would more effectively serve the transit needs of our region and
    the NE Corridor. Upgrades to the existing rail system could also more
    easily be extended to other destinations like New York and Boston, than
    would be the case with Maglev which would need entirely new right-of-
    way through the very densely developed Northeast. Existing rail
    stations are located in more central and well-established transit hubs,
    like DC's Union Station. A much more cost-effective solution would be
    to invest in improving our existing infrastructure and upgrade over
    time to high-speed rail standards.
        In conclusion, we urge you to pursue upgrades to the nation's
    existing rail infrastructure, including high-speed rail, in lieu of the
    SCMAGLEV. Thank you for your time.

           Letter of May 6, 2021, from Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Field
    Representative, National Parks Conservation Association, Submitted for
                      the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
                                                           May 6, 2021.
        Dear Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and members of the
    Subcommittee,
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today before the
    subcommittee, regarding the hearing ``When Unlimited Potential Meets
    Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and
    Emerging Rail Technologies.'' This testimony is presented by the
    National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). I am writing today
    behalf of NPCA's more than 1.6 million members and supporters
    nationwide. NPCA submits this testimony in ardent opposition to the
    proposed Baltimore to Washington SCMaglev train, which is being backed
    by Mr. Wayne Rodgers of The Northeast Maglev and is currently under the
    NEPA-required Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) review.
        Under the Baltimore-Washington proposal, project developers claim
    that commuters would be able to make the trip between the two cities in
    15 minutes. Initial estimates show that the project would cost at least
    $16.8 billion to build, and the average cost of a one-way ticket would
    be $60, eight times more than the same trip on the local commuter rail
    line, the Maryland Area Regional Commuter or MARC train. Approximately
    75% of the project would run underground in deep tunnels, while the
    remaining 25% would run on aboveground viaducts. These viaducts would
    stand up to150 feet off the ground, whizzing trains at 300mph through
    Maryland communities.
        This project is riddled with environmental concerns. To start,
    construction of the Maglev extends well beyond the tunnels and
    viaducts. Maglev would require the creation of a trainset maintenance
    facility (TMF), a 200-acre trainyard with hazardous chemicals and
    impervious surfaces. Maglev would also require the construction of 50-
    foot tall fresh air/emergency egress (FA/EE) structures every 3.5 miles
    along the route. Each FA/EE would require another three to seven acres
    of land. Construction would require right of way access roads, fences,
    power substations and more, negatively impacting a total of over 1,000
    acres of land between DC and Baltimore forever.
        As a result of the Maglev's footprint, the construction of the
    Baltimore-Washington Maglev could impact up to 389 acres of federally
    owned property. Depending on the build alternative, up to 89 acres of
    National Park Service land would be impacted. These impacts are
    centered at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The B-W Parkway was
    designated by Congress as a unit of the National Park Service in 1950
    and is meant to be a scenic route between Washington D.C. and
    Baltimore. The DEIS acknowledges that the construction of viaducts
    along the B-W Parkway would permanently alter the scenic nature of the
    Parkway. Another 24 acres at the Patuxent Research Reserve, managed by
    the US Fish and Wildlife Service, would be destroyed. Northeast
    Maglev's preferred alternative would destroy 165 acres of the
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Reserve (BARC), owned and managed by
    USDA, to make way for the TMF. According to the DEIS, impacts to these
    sites would be virtually impossible to mitigate. Other federally owned
    properties in Northeast Maglev's crosshairs include Fort Meade and
    NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. All of these agencies expressed
    concerns about the potential impacts to the sites that they manage
    during the scoping period last year.
        NPCA also has concerns regarding the implication this project would
    have on efforts to fight climate change. As verified in the DEIS, the
    Baltimore-Washington Maglev would increase regional transportation
    energy use by approximately 39% compared to the no-build alternative.
    In terms of passenger miles traveled, Maglev technology is 35% less
    efficient than existing bus transit and 20% less efficient than
    existing passenger rail. According to a report in Greenbelt Online by
    Dr. Owen Kelley, the Maglev project would increase CO2 emissions by up
    to 336 million kilograms per year relative to the no-build option.
        There are also significant environmental justice concerns
    surrounding the Baltimore-Washington Maglev as proposed. Minority
    populations comprise 69.6% and low-income populations make up 12.7% of
    the total population in the Maglev Project Affected Environment. There
    will be both permanent, long term as well as shorter term impacts from
    the Maglev Build Alternatives on communities of color and low-income
    populations. Low-income populations and Black and Latinx minorities are
    at a higher risk of direct and disproportionate impacts of the
    construction of this project. The construction of and the associated
    construction staging and laydown areas and haul routes for the Maglev
    Project would predominately occur within Environmental Justice
    population areas. According to the DEIS, 80% of the parcels that would
    be impacted by land use conversion, rezoning, and property acquisitions
    are in communities of color. Furthermore, 100% of the above ground
    viaduct portion of the Maglev, where construction and perpetual
    community impacts would be the greatest, are within or directly
    adjacent to environmental justice communities.
        Worse yet, these communities would not directly benefit from the
    Maglev. The proposed project has three stations; one in Mount Vernon
    East Washington D.C., a stop at the BWI Airport, and finally a terminus
    station in Baltimore at either Camden Yards or Cherry Hill. The
    communities of Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties would feel the
    brunt of construction and long-term impacts, while receiving almost
    nothing in return. Prince George's and Greenbelt officials have pushed
    back on this project for its disastrous impacts to their localities.
    The extremely high ticket price, an average of $60 for a one-way trip,
    would exclude all but the wealthiest of commuters from riding on
    Maglev. This is eight times higher than a corresponding ticket on the
    MARC train.
        NPCA also has concerns regarding Maglev's impacts to existing
    transit, for which NPCA has been a long-standing proponent. According
    to the DEIS, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev would be devastating to
    existing passenger rail in the region. It is expected that the Maglev
    will poach roughly 32% of annual MARC riders on the Penn and Camden
    lines (over 2.4 million riders) and 94% of annual Amtrak riders between
    Penn and Union Stations (over 332,000 riders). Congress, the Biden
    Administration, and Maryland, DC, and Virginia have all pledged multi-
    billion dollar investments to improve the connectivity and reliability
    of regional rail in the coming years. As Amtrak discussed in their
    scoping comments on Maglev, the Northeast Corridor Future Plan has
    already analyzed passenger rail needs between Baltimore and Washington
    and Maglev was not identified as a priority. Significant public and
    private investments have already been used, secured, or planned to
    improve the existing infrastructure in the Northeast Corridor. As
    clearly stated in the DEIS, investing in Maglev would cut Amtrak and
    MARC off at the knees.
        In conclusion, NPCA has extensive concerns regarding the proposed
    Baltimore to Washington Maglev train. Furthermore, given the negative
    impacts to existing transit, impacts to climate change, and necessary
    land use for such a project, it seems unlikely that NPCA would be able
    to support a Maglev project anywhere in the Northeast Corridor. We call
    on Congress to continue to invest in Amtrak and other regional transit
    opportunities that better safeguard our parks and the environment.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
                                                     Kyle Hart,
        Mid-Atlantic Field Representative, National Parks Conservation
                                                           Association.

     Letter from Jolene Ivey, Council Member, District 5, Prince George's
       County Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    Chairman Donald M. Payne Jr.,
    Ranking Member Rick Crawford,
    The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

        Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, members of the
    Subcommittee:
        As our country confronts our historic--and current--mistreatment of
    Black and Brown people at the hands of police and the criminal justice
    system, we should also acknowledge and address the ways that land use,
    development, and transportation projects have affected these same
    communities, also in a discriminatory way.
        There's a long list of projects that have been built with wanton
    disregard for minority communities, that have had long-term detrimental
    impact on them. The Northeast SCMaglev would be yet another.
        The Maglev project would wreak havoc on Prince George's County,
    eliminate green space, pollute our air, suffocate our businesses, and
    siphon off significant business and money from MARC commuter rail and
    Amtrak. Prince George's County would bear the brunt of these negative
    impacts while realizing no balancing benefits to our community. Again,
    a project is planned through a majority-minority community where the
    land is cheaper, the homes less expensive, and the resident's and
    community's opinion disregarded.
        The debate so far is mainly about public land, and the Maryland
    Department of Transportation's draft environmental impact statement is
    clear who would get the benefits: ``The SCMAGLEV Project could spur
    development and commercial investment in neighborhoods near station
    locations.''
        The Maglev project has no plan to have a station in Prince George's
    County. Our County residents would get only the noise, pollution,
    disruption to businesses, homes torn down, loss of riders on Amtrak and
    MARC, loss of economic prosperity, and more as the trains speed by us--
    figuratively and literally. This isn't just my opinion. The draft
    environmental impact statement describes what would happen in Prince
    George's County: It would ``Impact community cohesion.'' ``Increased
    noise.'' ``Vibrations.'' ``Changes to aesthetics.'' ``Could change the
    community feel and atmosphere.'' Sound familiar? It should.
        Here's the bottom line: this Maglev project is not good public
    policy, is not equitable, and is not a wise expenditure of public
    funds.
        There would be benefits for some people and some interests if
    Maglev were to go forward. But there are more reasons overall why this
    project should not go forward. Building Maglev would not be the smart
    thing to do.
        Upgrading and enhancing Amtrak and MARC would be a far better
    alternative to Maglev. Amtrak has the plans and ability to improve and
    upgrade its Northeast Corridor but doesn't have the money to do so.
    Upgrading Amtrak would have less environmental impact, would cause less
    overall disruption, and would have greater benefits for more people
    than would building Maglev.
        It is important for the region and across the country that we
    develop and expand public transit. Strengthened public transportation
    is needed to build a healthy and sustainable future. As a society we
    need to ween ourselves from our car-centric way of life and build
    environmentally wise, equitable, and walkable communities. Maglev is
    not the way to do that.
        Maglev is a project that would disproportionately benefit the
    wealthy; once again the benefits will not be equitably distributed to
    benefit working families, and those who bear the burdens will not be
    the beneficiaries. We've had enough of that.
        Also, as we've seen too often with other projects, the optimistic
    claims being made about the cost of building Maglev do not stand up to
    scrutiny. The claims of how many jobs will be created are inflated. And
    as we've seen too often, the cost estimates are questionable, and the
    possibility of delays and cost overruns should be understood.
        You should be wary of hidden and unexpected costs. There is no such
    thing as a free lunch, and when you hear those who would benefit from
    the project claim there will be little or no cost to taxpayers, history
    teaches us to take that with a grain of salt.
        If building this project were good public policy, and if building
    Maglev were a wise, equitable, and beneficial expenditure of public
    funds, I could support it even if our community would not benefit
    directly. But that is not the case.
        Objections from the community aren't just selfish NIMBY objections.
    This project simply is not good public policy, even beyond the
    unfairness of who will bear the burdens without gaining benefit. We can
    do better, and the funds can be better spent to benefit more people.
        Majority-minority communities matter. Equity and fairness matter.
    Transportation networks that serve communities matter. It is time to
    shelve the Maglev project.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Jolene Ivey.

     Testimony of John Tos, President, Tos Farms, Inc., Submitted for the
                          Record by Hon. Doug LaMalfa
                       California High-Speed Rail Project
                                  may 4, 2021
        My family and I have farmed in Fresno County and Kings County, in
    California's Central Valley, for generations. I am a farmer. I have
    built a reputation for honesty, reliability, and integrity. I keep my
    commitments and I expect others to keep their commitments to me.
        The California High-Speed Rail Authority knows nothing about
    honesty, reliability, integrity, or keeping commitments. For the past
    decade, the High-Speed Rail Authority has been trying to build a
    railroad through my families' farms. It has filed nine separate eminent
    domain lawsuits against me and my family members. It has destroyed our
    orchards, it has destroyed our irrigation systems, it has destroyed
    agricultural wells, it has cut off access to several of our farms, it
    has carved up our rectangular farms into triangles and trapezoids, it
    has created challenges to our farming that we are still trying to
    overcome.
        But that is not the bad part. The bad part is that the High-Speed
    Rail Project is so badly managed and administered that no one ever
    knows what they will do next. After some ten years, they still do not
    have a final project design, they still are not sure what property they
    need, they are still amending lawsuits to take more land or take less
    land or change the way they are affecting our operations, and they are
    still filing new lawsuits to take more land. Their staff turnover is so
    high, everybody we establish a relationship with is either fired or
    retires or gets transferred. It is next to impossible to find anyone
    who knows what is happening. We negotiate agreements in the field with
    people who claim to know what is happening only to have the agreement
    ignored or violated by other people who say they never heard of the
    agreement.
        I have stood in my orchards with engineers and lawyers and
    administrators from the High-Speed Rail Authority and talked about what
    they will do to my farm and when they will do it only to find out that
    what we talked about meant nothing and they are going to do something
    different.
        I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix what the High-
    Speed Rail Project has done to our farms. I am told we will be paid for
    what has happened but no amount of money will ever restore what we have
    lost. And we now have a giant swath of bare dirt running at an angle
    through our farms that we cannot cross. To get to the other side of our
    orchard, we have to drive miles. Moving farm equipment from one side of
    an orchard to the other has become a major challenge. Farm equipment is
    big and slow. Our employees are not safe driving it on narrow rural
    roads, on overpasses across the rail right-of-way, sometimes in the fog
    of winter.
        We have still not repaired the damage this Project has done to our
    farms. We are still spending money. We are still not confident High-
    Speed Rail won't announce some new design change that will take more
    land and damage more of our farms.
        High-speed rail is a good concept. Other countries have constructed
    excellent high-speed rail facilities. But the California High-Speed
    Rail Project is giving high-speed rail a black eye. This Project is so
    poorly managed and administered and is setting such a bad example, it
    may be the kiss of death to high-speed rail anywhere in the country. If
    you support high-speed rail, you cannot support the California High-
    Speed Rail Authority.

      Post-hearing Comments From Witness Andres de Leon, Chief Executive
                 Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies
    Question asked by Hon. Marilyn Strickland during hearing:
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        As we have heard from multiple witnesses on our first panel, the
    need for Federal investment in high-speed rail is clear, with the
    potential to create thousands of railroad and manufacturing jobs, save
    billions of dollars through reduced congestion on the roads. But I want
    to also point out that looking solely at high-speed rail doesn't
    necessarily solve every problem. We need a holistic framework that uses
    all types of modes of rail.
        So I would like to start with you, Mr. Flynn. I would like to touch
    on Amtrak's support for the development of new high-speed rail
    corridors and the role that the current service can play.
        So can you tell us, how can investments in conventional rail
    service complement investments in new high-speed rail lines like those
    being considered in my home State of Washington?
        Thank you.
    Post-hearing comment from Mr. de Leon:
        Federal investment into passenger rail systems should consider not
    only existing technologies but also emerging technologies that consider
    environmental challenges, safety and speed improvements, and the
    ability to attract private capital. The transportation industry has an
    opportunity to embrace these new technologies including hyperloop.
        Hyperloop alone cannot address every issue facing the
    transportation industry, but when investment in hyperloop is combined
    with investments in sustainable first and last-mile solutions,
    hyperloop becomes the backbone of a new era of sustainable
    transportation, that does not require energy input from external
    sources and generates zero CO2 emissions. Currently, the United States'
    transportation infrastructure relies heavily on roadways for short and
    intermediate journeys, and aviation for longer journeys, both leading
    sources of environmental pollution. The future of transportation
    depends upon hyperloop as part of a sustainable multi-modal solution.
    Investments in hyperloop, partnered with investments in commuter rail,
    new clean modalities and HSR where appropriate, will create a
    sustainable infrastructure that meets the country's evolving
    transportation needs.
                                   __________
    Question asked by Hon. Bruce Westerman during hearing:
        Mr. Westerman. OK. So that still surprises me that it is that much
    per mile, but you built them so you know exactly what it costs.
        And as we look at new technologies like hyperloop, I do see a lot
    of advantages for that because it is a small footprint. The pods
    operating in a vacuum. I have had a chance to go out to Las Vegas and
    visit the test site and I know that there has been a lot of great work
    that you guys are doing up there, Josh.
        I know you could probably build hyperloop on a highway interstate
    median. It could go underground, it could go underwater, it could go
    above the ground. You don't have any grade crossings, you don't have to
    worry about animals getting in the way, it is averse to weather.
        But I also understand that the technology is not as proven, but
    outside of that, what would prohibit--I mean if you are looking at
    high-speed rail or mass transit, why wouldn't we be looking at
    hyperloop as the first technology to look at, or the future technology?
    Post-hearing comment from Mr. de Leon:
        Hyperloop provides all the advantages of high-speed rail, including
    speed, safety, and capacity, while amplifying these advantages beyond
    the vision and capabilities of current systems. Hyperloop travel is the
    natural evolution of high-speed rail and MagLev technologies, combining
    existing technology with new innovations to safely and efficiently
    achieve top speeds in excess of 700 mph.
        Hyperloop can be constructed underground in relatively small
    tunnels, reducing or eliminating the need to acquire the right of way
    necessary for construction. While somewhat more expensive than elevated
    construction, the development of hyperloop in tunnels not only
    mitigates surface impacts to communities and eliminates potential
    environmental impacts, but also preserves project schedules by reducing
    the potential for delays and increased costs that have been experienced
    in other large linear infrastructure projects.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

    Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy
                  Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

        Question 1. Deputy Secretary Porcari, high-speed rail development
    can deliver on the key goals of the American Jobs Plan: climate,
    equity, economic recovery, and jobs. Demand for rail transport rises as
    a function of speed and convenience, which we've seen with the
    construction of integrated high-speed rail systems in other nations.
    Reduce travel time, and ridership grows. With high-speed rail, that
    means more people traveling by low-carbon or carbon-less
    transportation, helping achieve a major goal of the American Jobs Plan.
    Why is ridership capture so important for reducing emissions in the
    transportation sector, and what implication does this have for how we
    choose to invest in rail infrastructure?
        Answer. Because the transport sector is now the single largest
    source of CO2 emissions in the United States, we cannot make
    significant progress in reducing these emissions without rebalancing
    our transportation system. We have to bring balance--real choices--to a
    transportation system that today systematically advantages certain
    travel modes over others. Simply put, we cannot reach our emissions
    reduction goals without providing a viable alternative to single
    occupancy vehicles and short-range air travel, and that, in turn,
    requires a federal financial investment in higher and high speed rail
    equal to that of other travel modes.
        Ridership capture by rail means immediate emissions reductions when
    the electricity that powers the system comes from renewable sources.
    The California high speed rail system will reduce emissions by 2 metric
    tons of carbon per year, the equivalent of taking 432,000 cars off the
    road in California--roughly the number of cars registered in San
    Francisco County. In contrast, even the most aggressive electrification
    estimates for the existing vehicle fleet on the road means we will have
    a substantial ICE-powered fleet for the next 20 years.
        We cannot meet America's aggressive emissions reduction goals
    through the gradual replacement of the existing passenger vehicles and
    truck fleet; we need to change the market share of mass transit and
    rail relative to single-occupancy vehicles and short-range air travel.
        Worldwide, there are many examples of highly successful ridership
    capture by high speed rail. For example, with the construction of the
    Madrid-Seville AVE high speed rail line, rail went from a 14% to a 51%
    market share, while air travel dropped from a 40% share to 13%, and the
    car/bus share dropped from 44% to 36%. This is one example of a world-
    wide trend: the provision of high speed rail fundamentally rebalances
    the transportation network in a manner that includes climate, equity
    and land use benefits. Ridership capture by high speed rail accelerates
    the virtuous cycle of more frequent service, greater capacity, ever-
    increasing emissions reductions, reduced runway and roadway congestion,
    and beneficial land use changes. One essential precursor to creating
    this virtuous cycle is investing in higher and high speed rail
    commensurate with public investment in other transportation modes.

    Questions from Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr. to Rachel Smith, President and
       Chief Executive Officer, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

        Question 1. Ms. Smith, how should we implement High-Speed Rail so
    that all Americans can equitably benefit from it? Can you elaborate on
    how high-speed rail can positively impact underserved communities?
        Answer. We believe high speed rail's mobility, climate, and
    economic promise is a benefit to all communities, and our residents
    agree: a just-released poll found that more than three in five voters
    in Oregon and Washington support establishing a regional high-speed
    rail project, and this includes voters in rural, small towns, and the
    suburbs. There are both direct and indirect benefits to these
    communities, as high speed rail is part of transportation ecosystem--
    park and rides, local buses, and regional light and commuter rail
    systems will provide people access to high speed rail, and as a result,
    access to more job and educational opportunities. It also creates more
    opportunity for affordable housing investments in transit oriented
    development (TOD) projects, and more connections so people can get
    where they need to go and get back home to their families.
        High speed rail is also a true green job creator, both for skilled
    workers like electricians and for professional service providers like
    engineers. The Cascadia project alone is projected to add 200,000 new
    jobs, and we believe that scale will be similar with projects across
    the country.
        As with all projects, we believe that intentional planning in
    infrastructure investments, with a lens of race, equity, and social
    justice, can have great community, mobility, and environmental
    benefits.

        Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Phillip A. Washington, Chief
       Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
                                   Authority

        Question 1. Mr. Washington, you spoke during your testimony about
    high-speed rail's potential to renew the American Dream in the form of
    affordable and equitable housing. China found this to be true, with
    high-speed rail operations reducing regional disparities by 25.7%. By
    comparison, the construction of our highways often displaced low-income
    residents and isolated communities of color from resources enjoyed by
    wealthier and whiter communities. How do you expect the junction and
    integration of two high-speed rail corridors into the LA Metro to
    impact nearby communities in terms of economic, housing, and other
    opportunities?
        Answer. Historically, the Interstate Freeway system often divided
    communities and isolated low-income communities of color, while transit
    investments have created opportunities to uplift low-income communities
    of color in three ways:
        1.  Job creation: For every $1 billion our nation invests in
    transit, we create tens of thousands of jobs. These jobs are living-
    wage, union jobs that provide ladders of opportunities to individuals--
    enabling workers to purchase a home and build wealth for their family.
        2.  Access: Transit riders in Los Angeles County are
    disproportionately low-income and communities of color. Improving
    transit with high-speed services will greatly expand the job
    opportunities that riders can readily access. It will allow individuals
    to travel to more potential jobs and schools in a shorter amount of
    time. The cost of housing has been increasing steadily in Los Angeles
    County and creating an affordability crisis that is driving people to
    spend more than half of their income on housing. Transportation is the
    next largest cost in a household budget and reducing transportation
    costs by enabling people to take transit instead of driving can provide
    crucial relief to families burdened by housing costs.
        3.  Transit-oriented communities: The Los Angeles County
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has pioneered equitable
    transit-oriented development with the prioritization of affordable
    housing and neighborhood-serving amenities at transit stations. Transit
    projects often result in excess land near transit stations that create
    opportunities for transit-oriented affordable housing with direct
    access to a growing transit system. Beyond the publicly owned land
    adjacent to transit stations, transit supportive zoning, including
    density bonuses to support inclusionary zoning are amplifying equitable
    access to transit across the region.

        Mobility and access to opportunity are essential to equity. The
    harder it is to get to one's job, school, or park, the fewer
    opportunities one has for personal advancement and betterment. Highways
    are designed to support a transportation technology that is inherently
    private and has--in many cases--served to exacerbate inequalities by
    enabling exclusionary land use policies. Rail, in contrast, is a
    publicly accessible technology that connects nodes of economic
    activity. Communities that plan for new stations are able to leverage
    tremendous economic benefits by creating fast and affordable
    connections between jobs, housing and community destinations. It is
    essential that such planning incorporate policies, programs and
    supporting infrastructure that ensure the participation of
    traditionally marginalized communities in this economic benefit. As an
    example, at Metro, transit-supportive land use is essential to solving
    the larger picture of equitable access and housing affordability in Los
    Angeles County. While Metro does not have regulatory land use control,
    nor authority to directly enact policies that support equitable
    development, Metro's Transit Oriented Communities policy encourages
    partnerships with local municipalities, community-based organizations
    and a range of stakeholders to enable and incentivize realization of
    equitable development around the transit system.
        It is clear that the junction and integration of two high-speed
    rail corridors into Metro's broader rail system would vastly expand
    employment and housing choices within our region. This alone, will
    bring great benefits to Southern Californians that have been priced out
    of their neighborhoods and face long commutes to access their jobs.
    However, these rail corridors also create an opportunity to leverage
    the work Metro is doing to create equitable transit-oriented
    communities. In fact, Metro has established a series of programs that
    directly support the protection and creation of affordable housing and
    small businesses around transit, including a fund to support the
    protection and production of affordable housing in low-income
    communities near high-quality transit nodes; the Business Interruption
    Fund which grants up to $50,000 to small businesses impacted by certain
    Metro construction projects; and a Countywide Small Business Initiative
    which will invest in small and local businesses around transit.
        Beyond these existing programs and policies, Metro is now advancing
    the Transit Oriented Communities Implementation Plan to establish a
    series of programs and projects that will further expand Metro's
    efforts to address displacement of low-income households, strengthen
    opportunities for small and local businesses, and preserve and enhance
    communities' cultural assets.
        Thank you for your question Congressman Moulton. Metro looks
    forward to working with you and members of the 117th Congress to
    advance the mobility needs of Los Angeles County's ten million
    residents.

       Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Danielle Eckert, International
       Representative, Political and Legislative Affairs, International
                       Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

        Question 1. Ms. Eckert, my bill, the American High-Speed Rail Act,
    ensures operators are deemed carriers, upholds hard-won protections
    like Buy America and Davis-Bacon, and requires FRA to promulgate
    standards and regulations for high-speed rail. Why are these critical
    actions for ensuring our infrastructure creates good-paying jobs?
        Answer. Operators of rail transportation and their associated
    support staff must be considered carriers when federal dollars are used
    as a lever to create good-paying jobs. The traditional railroad
    workforce has a high union density. As a result, railroad workers enjoy
    middle-class wages, healthcare benefits, and dignified retirement. Over
    the last 20 years, we have seen efforts by industry to contract out
    mechanical work, inspections, overhauling, and modification of rolling
    stock that union railroad workers have traditionally performed to
    entities not covered under the Railway Labor Act. In one case, a
    passenger railroad has successfully circumvented these protections
    entirely. These efforts have created a division in the workforce--
    traditional railroad workers and workers who perform support activities
    for rail transportation. Workers who are not covered under the
    appropriate railroad labor laws--like the Railway Labor Act, the
    Railroad Retirement Act, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act--
    perform the same duties, but do not receive the same pay, benefits, or
    representation for unsafe labor practices as those covered by those
    laws.
        As mentioned in my written testimony, according to the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics, workers performing the work of ``support activities
    for rail transportation'' make significantly less than those who work
    for ``rail transportation.'' These workers are also not eligible for
    the same retirement benefits Rail Labor has fought for since 1935. Such
    successful back-door attempts to subvert hard-won labor protections
    seek to not only erode pay and benefits but workplace standards and
    safety protections.
        Davis-Bacon prevailing wages are set by surveys of salaries and
    benefits paid to construction workers in a community, regardless of
    their union membership. These surveys set the bar for local wage
    standards. If a community receives federal economic development dollars
    for a new project that will provide benefits in terms of access to
    public services and is advertised as a ``job creator'' for the
    residents of the area, it should be conditioned on contractors paying
    their employees a fair wage, based on the typical income workers
    receive in the area for the performance of those duties. What is the
    benefit of allowing a company to pay sub-par wages, without benefits,
    to a relatively unskilled, temporary workforce? It creates jobs that
    pay wages that will never lift anyone out of poverty, never allow
    workers to develop a career, and will not create generational wealth
    within the region.
        Without labor standards, industry actively avoids using organized
    labor as a simple cost-cutting strategy to provide greater returns for
    those they are accountable to, shareholders. As a result, the United
    States has seen a more significant division between pay equity and
    severe wage stagnation.
        Buy America requirements ensure that we are creating domestic
    supply chains for new industries. The impacts of not having robust
    domestic supply bases have been borne out before us. Whether it's
    critical shortages of personal protective equipment to combat a global
    pandemic, or the inability of U.S. companies to obtain microchips to
    meet the demands of technology, we have witnessed the results of not
    having guardrails on investments made within industry.
        The FRA must promulgate standards and regulations for high-speed
    rail to conduct proper oversight of the carrier, not only to facilitate
    good-paying jobs but to create safe employment. With the appropriate
    oversight of regulatory agencies, workers can feel confident that
    controls are in place to ensure that they come home at the end of the
    day. When you're a railroad worker, there is a common saying: ``The
    rulebook is written in blood'' carrier rules are more often than not
    the result of federal regulations. Modern railroads are still
    dangerous; the industry requires oversight and organized labor to
    vocally advocate for their members and the public for rail operations
    to be conducted safely. There may be a need to reevaluate regulations
    to adapt to new technology, but the basic framework already exists.
    Even the defense department weighs the value of conducting operations
    against the risk of loss of life, limb, and personal property and works
    to implement controls to mitigate those risks and execute a successful
    mission. It is hard to identify why the Federal Railroad Administration
    should abdicate that same sense of responsibility.
        Labor standards are guardrails set by the federal government to
    ensure the workforce used in the construction of a project is not
    subject to exploitative practices, that the permanent workforce gets
    the protections their brothers and sisters before them fought for and
    that we are creating a domestic supply chain for materials and
    resources that are needed now and to meet the technological demands of
    the future.

    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Hon. Carbett J. ``Trey'' Duhon III,
                          Judge, Waller County, Texas

        Question 1. Has Texas Central or the federal government addressed
    the issues around flooding mitigations, emergency response times and
    how those impact your communities?
        Answer. No. To this day, neither Texas Central nor any federal
    government agency has addressed the flooding issues/impacts of this
    project or the impact this project may have on emergency response times
    within Waller County or the other counties impacted by this project.
    Not only were these issues not addressed, but at no point during the
    entire NERA process was there any effective or substantive coordination
    with local officials, like myself, to properly evaluate or mitigate any
    of these potential impacts to our communities.

        Question 2. What type of local coordination did TCR and/or FRA
    engage in? Were you an equal partner to them or just simply treated as
    in your way?
        Answer. Unfortunately, we were never treated as an equal partner
    nor was there any adequate level of local coordination. In 2006, Waller
    County created the Waller County Sub-Regional Planning Commission
    (``WCSRPC'') specifically for the purpose of coordinating with state
    and federal agencies on any project that may have an impact on our
    community. The WCSRPC consisted of representatives from Waller County,
    in addition to every municipality in Waller County as well as two
    school districts. The WCSRPC also had citizen representation as well.
    Our WCSRPC attempted on multiple occasions to engage in substantive
    coordination with the FRA and we were refused in every instance. When
    the WCSRPC requested coordination with the Texas Department of
    Transportation (who was originally listed as a co-lead agency on the
    project), one meeting was held in which we brought to light numerous
    impacts to our community that needed to be addressed. When we tried to
    follow up with TXDOT, they refused to meet with us based on
    instructions from the FRA to TXDOT (this is documented). After
    extensive and successful litigation, TXDOT was ordered by a District
    Judge to engage in additional coordination with the WCSRPC. We
    subsequently met with TXDOT only to be informed that they were no
    longer a co-lead agency on the project and as such, they did not have
    any information to provide to us. Although TCR did reach out to the
    WCSRPC, as a matter of law--TCR was not responsible for approval of the
    Environmental Impact Statement. There was no reasonable effort made by
    the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to try to work with the
    Commission or myself on this project and its potential impacts. In
    fact, the reality was that there appeared to be a concerted effort by
    the FRA to avoid coordination and intentionally obstruct the WCSRPC
    from engaging in meaningful coordination on this project. As a County
    Judge, I have never seen such a lack of coordination between federal,
    state, and local governmental entities and an intentional effort to
    avoid such coordination which is completely contrary to NEPA, and a
    litany of other federal laws requiring coordination with local
    government. All of the above facts are well documented and
    substantiated by correspondence, documentation, emails, and video
    recordings.

        Question 3. Can you elaborate on what permits TCR still needs to
    get in order to begin construction and operations?
        Question 4. Did Texas Central inform you of these unfulfilled
    requirements necessary to start construction and operations or were you
    told, as Members of Congress were in Mr. Aguilar's testimony, that TCR
    has ``achieved all major permitting and engineering milestones needed
    to begin construction''?
        Answer to 3 and 4. No matter what Texas Central says to the public
    or this Committee about this project being ``shovel ready,'' they still
    have a very long road ahead in order to begin construction and
    operation.
        Last September, Texas Central received a special regulatory
    carveout called a Rule of Particular Applicability (RPA) from the FRA
    (something the agency had never issued in their entire history until
    now), which gives Texas Central the safety standards needed to operate
    the high-speed train safely along the route. The RPA does not grant
    Texas Central any permits to construct or operate--contrary to what
    Texas Central has misled the public to believe. Instead, the RPA simply
    provides a blueprint for Texas Central to operate a high-speed train if
    they ever receive the necessary approvals from the Surface
    Transportation Board (STB or the Board) under USC 43 10901.
    Additionally, Texas Central requested a full exemption for their
    Japanese rolling stock to be within the RPA but were denied. Thus
    meaning Texas Central will need to spend a significant amount of money
    redesigning their Japanese rolling stock to be compliant with the RPA.
    This change would have to be done prior to submitting their full
    application to the STB to get approvals for construction and
    operational permits since the Board requires final designs, not
    conceptual.
        In July 2020, when the STB claimed jurisdiction over the project
    they also denied Texas Central's request for an exemption under USC 43
    10901 for permits to construct and operate. Instead, the STB is
    requiring Texas Central to submit a full application to the Board,
    which will scrutinize the project in ways Texas Central has been
    reluctant to disclose to the government and the public since the
    project was first introduced (especially in areas like financial
    feasibility). And Texas Central has yet to file an application since
    this decision by the Board last July. This process could take several
    years to complete. Although TCR has never informed us that these
    requirements were ``unfulfilled'', they have never denied our
    assertions on this topic other than saying that they have ``achieved
    all major permitting and engineering milestones needed to begin
    construction'', which is simply untrue. They do not have any permits in
    Waller County to begin construction. The State of Texas has not granted
    TCR any such authority to date, and they must go through an application
    process with STB to be permitted to construct this project. Their
    repeated statements of being ``shovel ready'' are merely public
    relations tactics that they have now used for years.

       Question from Hon. Seth Moulton to Andy Kunz, President and Chief
              Executive Officer, U.S. High Speed Rail Association

        Question 1. Mr. Kunz, by some estimates, building high-speed rail
    nearly doubles the number of jobs created by a similar investment in
    highway and transit projects. What types of jobs are created by high-
    speed rail investment, and will unemployment only be lowered along
    corridors?
        Answer. Thanks for that question, Congressman Moulton. High speed
    rail investment will stimulate our economy across broad sectors, and
    throughout the nation--not only where new train lines will operate. A
    new high speed rail network will create a wide variety of jobs across
    multiple sectors to build the new system including design, engineering,
    construction, steel and concrete, fabrication, and train manufacturing.
    Many of these jobs will be created in depressed parts of the country by
    strategically locating factories in those places.
        Then there will be scores more jobs in the operation and
    maintenance of the system including train drivers, track maintenance
    and inspection, station management, operations, signaling, system
    control centers, security, and on-board train hosts, managers, and
    cleaners. This includes an entire food prep sector for all the meals
    and beverages served on the trains. There will also be many jobs
    created in the stations and the many new retail establishments that
    open there. In addition, this will be a major stimulus in several more
    industries including vastly increased tourism and travel and all the
    jobs that will bring to hotels, travel services, tourist destinations,
    cruise lines, rental cars, and more. It will also stimulate a whole new
    real estate boom creating vast new jobs in real estate development,
    construction and management of all the new real estate surrounding the
    stations, plus many more new jobs in architecture and urban planning
    and design related to this new development.
        The express freight side of high speed rail will create scores of
    new jobs in operating the express freight system, both the trains and
    all the warehouses and support facilities related to a new national
    freight shipment system.

     Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Carlos Aguilar, President and
                     Chief Executive Officer, Texas Central

        Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
    a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
    to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
        Answer. Texas Central is and will always be a private American
    corporation. Our funding option will depend on the most reasonable
    conditions available in the market to us or any other similar company.
    We do not envision our service needing operating support from a foreign
    government. Our aim is to provide a transportation option for the
    public good and service in similar fashion to other private companies
    in the United States. Texas Central will own and operate its assets for
    the benefit of the safety and well-being of the public.
        We agree that it is a good idea for American infrastructure to be
    owned, built, and operated by American companies, including many small
    minority-owned businesses, and workers.

        Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
    middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
    the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
    exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
    like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
    that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
    of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
    rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
    intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
    funding:
        a.  Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
        Answer. It is our objective to maximize the sourcing of materials
    from US suppliers, subject to availability and without risking safety.
    In cases where there is no US source for safety and performance
    critical components, we will seek coordination consistent with the Buy
    America statute. In those cases, we would work closely with the
    Administration to reach a resolution that would allow the project to
    move forward.

        b.  Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
    carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
    project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
    Railroad Retirement?
        Answer. Yes, as a ``rail carrier'' subject to STB jurisdiction,
    Texas Central will comply with all the applicable laws and regulations.

        Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
    billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
    billion in rail investment.
        Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
    build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
    would you recommend we prioritize?
        Answer. We fully endorse President Biden's initiatives to improve
    America's passenger rail experience. We appreciate the recent
    Congressional support of high-speed rail and are especially encouraged
    by Rep. Seth Moulton's recent proposals to invest in this needed
    transportation infrastructure. We would be very eager to engage with
    Congress and the Department of Transportation in formulating priorities
    and sharing our experience structuring a complete/self-contained
    project approach to reduce risks and firm up cost and schedule. Texas
    Central is a frontrunner in delivering true high-speed rail to the
    nation, based on a service-proven system with an exemplary safety and
    performance record and the integrated approach we have led to ensure
    all aspects of design, construction, and operations are defined and
    inter-linked before breaking ground.

       Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Carlos Aguilar,
              President and Chief Executive Officer, Texas Central

        Question 1. Last year, Surface Transportation Board (STB)
    Chairwoman Begeman confirmed that Texas Central must file a full
    application, which the Board must approve, in order for the project to
    begin construction.
        a.  Do you agree with the Chairwoman that this project cannot begin
    until an application has been approved? Has Texas Central filed a full
    application with the STB? If not, when does Texas Central plan to
    submit the full permit application to the STB?
        Answer. The application can be a complex undertaking and we are in
    the preparation stages.

        b.  In the past, Texas Central has claimed this project is ``shovel
    ready.'' However, the Texas Tribune recently found [https://
    www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/]
    your company still lacks key federal and state approvals. Does Texas
    Central currently have all necessary permits to begin construction?
        Answer. As many members are aware, regulatory approvals and
    permitting for an infrastructure project are complex, lengthy, and
    expensive. Texas Central supports past and current efforts to
    streamline the regulatory and permitting processes. Texas Central has
    achieved most of the required major regulatory milestones.

        Question 2. In 2016, then CEO Tim Keith wrote that ``The project
    does not need, does not want and will not ask for government grants for
    construction or public money to subsidize operations.'' In 2014, former
    TCR President Robert Eckels, that ``If we start taking the federal
    money, it takes twice as long, costs twice as much, . . . My guess is
    we'd end up pulling the plug on it.''
        a.  Has Texas Central changed its position on receiving taxpayer
    money? If so, why?
        Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
    public and private.

        b.  Will Texas Central recommit to not taking public money?
        Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
    public and private.

        Question 3. In your written testimony, you thanked the committee
    for its efforts to include a provision in H.R. 2., the Moving Forward
    Act. This provision would remove taxpayer protections related to credit
    risk premiums paid by loan applicants, ultimately allowing Texas
    Central to access federal dollars.
        a.  Why should Congress change federal law specifically for Texas
    Central?
        Answer. We have not asked Congress to change any laws specifically
    for us.

        b.  Would Texas Central be able to access taxpayer dollars through
    the RRIF lending program without this provision?
        Answer. Yes. If we decide to apply for a RRIF loan or any other
    government loan program we would, of course, abide by the requirements.

        c.  According to you [https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2020/
    06/05/texas-central-stimulus-money.html?b=1591362897%5E21684960], $30
    billion is a conservative estimate for the all-in project cost. How
    much of this would be covered by funding from the RRIF lending program?
        Answer. We are looking at all financing options based on
    availability, term, and cost. All funding sourced from the US
    government would be spent in the United States.

    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Carlos Aguilar, President and Chief
                        Executive Officer, Texas Central

        Question 1. Your testimony claims Texas Central has ``achieved all
    major permitting and engineering milestones needed to begin
    construction.'' Yet, just last year, Surface Transportation Board (STB)
    Chairwomen Begeman confirmed that Texas Central must file a full
    application, which the Board must approve, in order for the project to
    begin construction.
        a.  Can you clarify the apparent contradiction here?
        Answer. As many members are aware, regulatory approvals and
    permitting for an infrastructure project are complex, lengthy, and
    expensive. Texas Central has achieved most of the required major
    regulatory milestones.

        b.  Do you agree with the Chairwoman that this project cannot begin
    until an application has been approved?
        Answer. We are grateful that STB approved our petition for
    jurisdiction. Regulatory approvals and permitting for an infrastructure
    project are complex, lengthy, and expensive. Texas Central has achieved
    most of the required major regulatory milestones, will continue to work
    with all agencies to advance to the construction phase.

        c.  Has Texas Central filed a full application with the STB?
        Answer. We are grateful that STB approved our petition for
    jurisdiction. Regulatory approvals and permitting for an infrastructure
    project are complex, lengthy, and expensive. Texas Central has achieved
    most of the required major regulatory milestones, will continue to work
    with all agencies to advance to the construction phase.

        d.  If not, when does it intend to file such an application?
        Answer. We are grateful that STB approved our petition for
    jurisdiction. Regulatory approvals and permitting for an infrastructure
    project are complex, lengthy, and expensive. Texas Central has achieved
    most of the required major regulatory milestones, will continue to work
    with all agencies to advance to the construction phase.

        e.  In communications with prospective investors, did Texas Central
    relay the STB's determination that it needed to file a full application
    for STB approval before breaking ground?
        Answer. We inform prospective investors of all relevant
    requirements needed to make the project succeed.

        Question 2. In the past, Texas Central has claimed this project is
    ``shovel ready.'' However, the Texas Tribune recently found your
    company still lacks key federal and state approvals.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-
    bullet-train-permits/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        a.  Does Texas Central currently have all necessary permits to
    begin construction?
        Answer. As many members are aware, regulatory approvals and
    permitting for an infrastructure project are complex, lengthy, and
    expensive. Texas Central supports past and current efforts to
    streamline the regulatory and permitting processes. Texas Central has
    achieved most of the major required regulatory milestones.

        b.  In communications with prospective investors, did Texas Central
    acknowledge the outstanding approvals needed before construction or did
    it repeat the ``shovel ready'' claim?
        Answer. We inform prospective investors of all relevant
    requirements needed to make the project succeed.

        Question 3. How have the project's construction costs tripled in
    just five years, from $10 billion to $30 billion, before it's broken
    ground, and before a construction permit detailing all necessary
    additional and complex build requirements has been issued?
        Answer. Costs increase for a number of reasons, reducing impact on
    landowners, addressing stakeholder interests, design, and remediation
    impacts of the very lengthy NEPA process, etc. The pandemic has also
    impacted costs and schedule across the industry.

        Question 4. Why did TCR refrain from providing the $30 billion cost
    figure prior to the April 8, 2020 letter sent by TCR Chair McLane to
    Texas State Senator Robert Nichols that revealed the projected costs
    had skyrocketed, increasing 300 percent over the last publicly
    available project cost estimate; and how did the impact on potential
    investment opportunities factor into TCR's decision not to publicly
    disclose the updated information before this letter?
        Answer. As stated, costs can change for a number of reasons over
    time and we inform our investors and the public appropriately.

        Question 5. In every instance where TCR communicated with
    prospective investors, did TCR provide the most up to date and accurate
    project cost estimate available?
        Answer. As stated, costs can change for a number of reasons over
    time and we inform our investors and the public appropriately.

        Question 6. The rapid spike in estimated construction costs to
    date--tripling in just five years--raises questions about how much
    these prices have increased over the last year, particularly as
    President Biden's inflationary policies are driving up the costs of
    construction materials. What is the current estimated cost of the
    project and when did Texas Central calculate that figure?
        Answer. The current estimated construction cost is $24 billion,
    other costs will depend on credit risk premiums, interest rates, etc.

        Question 7. How many tens of billions of dollars does Texas Central
    anticipate in additional cost increases in the next five years?
        Answer. We do not anticipate cost increases in the realm of ``tens
    of billions of dollars'' in the next five years.

        Question 8. In 2016, then CEO Tim Keith wrote that ``The project
    does not need, does not want and will not ask for government grants for
    construction or public money to subsidize operations.'' In 2014, former
    TCR President Robert Eckels, that ``If we start taking the federal
    money, it takes twice as long, costs twice as much, . . . My guess is
    we'd end up pulling the plug on it.''
        a.  Has Texas Central changed its position on receiving taxpayer
    money?
        b.  If so, why?
        c.  Will Texas Central recommit to not taking public money?
        Answer to a., b., & c. We are always evaluating all potential
    funding sources, public and private.

        Question 9. In your written testimony, you thanked the committee
    for its efforts to include a provision in H.R. 2., the Moving Forward
    Act. This provision would remove taxpayer protections related to credit
    risk premiums paid by loan applicants, ultimately allowing Texas
    Central to access federal dollars--and it's my understanding that TCR
    actively lobbied for it.
        a.  Why should Congress change federal law specifically for Texas
    Central?
        Answer. We have not asked Congress to change any laws specifically
    for us.

        b.  Would Texas Central be able to access taxpayer dollars through
    the RRIF lending program without this provision?
        Answer. Yes. If we apply for a RRIF loan or any other government
    loan program we would, of course, abide by the requirements.

        c.  According to you, $30 billion is a conservative estimate for
    the all-in project cost. How much of this would be covered by funding
    from the RRIF lending program?
        Answer. We are looking at all financing options based on
    availability, term, and cost. All funding sourced from the US
    government would be spent in the United States.

        d.  What do you expect to be the total project break down between
    federal funding and private financing for the project?
        Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
    public and private based on eligible limits.

        e.  Can Texas Central complete this project without federal
    funding?
        Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
    public and private.

        f.  If not, how much federal funding is absolutely necessary for
    the completion of this project?
        Answer. We are always evaluating all potential funding sources,
    public and private.

        Question 10. How does TCR intend to demonstrate that it is
    accurately representing the status of the project and its costs in
    light of the previous misleading statements made by yourself and other
    TCR leaders--up to and including the misleading statements referenced
    above?
        Answer. We have always honestly informed our stakeholders and the
    public regarding our actions.

        Question 11. Your testimony indicates that the project has
    ``secured development capital investment from Japan'' but in reality,
    this money comes in the form of a loan from the Japanese government--is
    that your understanding of the arrangement?
        Answer. There has been very significant investment from many Texan
    and US investors. The Japanese Bank for International Cooperation and
    Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corporation for Transport &
    Urban Development have also provided both a loan and equity investment.

        Question 12. Can you please inform the Committee what amount of
    funding Texas Central has obtained to date that has not come from a
    Government source?
        Answer. No federal, state, or local funding has been received or
    solicited by us.

        Question 13. What percentage of the total funding received to date,
    is the amount obtained from non-government sources?
        Answer. No federal, state, or local funding has been received or
    solicited by us. The amount invested by private individuals is
    proprietary.

        Question 14. If the Federal government is going to be in the
    business of funding high speed rail--for the record, I do not think we
    should--it's vital to apply the lessons learned from the California
    project. Given TCR's skyrocketing cost estimates to date, taxpayers are
    rightfully concerned that this will be yet another boondoggle costing
    tens of billions with nothing to show in return--what assurances can
    you provide on the record to demonstrate that TCR can, in fact, be a
    good steward of taxpayer funds despite its actions to date that
    strongly indicate otherwise?
        Answer. We have consistently and successfully cooperated, over a
    period of several years, with federal agencies on significant
    regulatory actions at considerable company expense. If we receive
    federal loans, this record should be a very good predictor of
    stewardship.

        Question 15. Another concerning parallel between the projects is
    the failure to obtain the necessary land to complete the project before
    asking for taxpayer funds. In California, the proposed route was never
    properly surveyed and so the state never acquired all the properties to
    complete portions of the high-speed rail project there, how does Texas
    Central anticipate acquiring every single parcel of land required to
    build this as proposed?
        Answer. Texas Central has successfully negotiated hundreds of
    options and each discussion is unique and personal. Texas Central will
    acquire parcels of land via eminent domain only as a last resort.

        Question 16. How long will it take to acquire the more than 60% of
    all the properties whose owners have refused to sell to date?
        Answer. Once acquisition begins, Texas Central anticipates having
    possession of the remaining properties within 16 months.

        Question 17. Does TCR's current cost estimate include the likely
    costs associated with schedule delays as a result of this process?
        Answer. The acquisition of the needed real estate and the
    associated costs are included in Texas Central's overall project cost
    and schedule.

        Question 18. Did Texas Central inform those citizens who did sell
    their properties for a Texas infrastructure project that their property
    deeds could be transferred into the control of a foreign government in
    an offshore Cayman Islands account?
        Answer. Texas Central owns the property purchased for the state-of-
    the-art high-speed train project and continues to honor all of the
    commitments made to the landowners who have participated in the Land
    Option Purchase Program. Texas Central provided a security interest on
    its acquired property to its lender which is customary practice in real
    property transactions and no property needed for construction of the
    project has been conveyed to a foreign entity.

        Question 19. Now that a federal lawsuit has been filed against the
    U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad
    Administration, which private sector investors will invest in the
    project before the litigation is completed?
        Answer. We cannot comment on a federal lawsuit that is in progress,
    and to which we are not a party.

        Question 20. Central Japan Railway, which operates the Shinkansen
    high-speed rail system Texas Central wants to build in Texas, reported
    a $2 billion loss for the year ended March 31, due to plummeting
    ridership during the COVID pandemic. What post-COVID studies has Texas
    Central conducted regarding realistic ridership and revenue generation
    projections?
        Answer. As the COVID pandemic is still not over there are no
    ``post-COVID'' studies yet available. However, from a historical basis,
    we do not foresee any significant changes to our projections.

        Question 21. The Biden Administration is calling for Buy American
    policies, and for creating permanent American jobs. Texas Central has
    retained an Italian company to design and build the system, a Spanish
    company to operate the system, a Japanese company to provide the
    equipment, and a Canadian company to provide engineering support.
    Please explain how Texas Central's foreign hiring spree advances the
    President's vision for creating many new American jobs?
        Answer. The overwhelming number of jobs will be held by Americans
    in America. Furthermore, the temporary employment of a very few foreign
    experts will result in the transfer to the USA of new high-tech
    industry that will result in even more domestic job growth and needed
    expertise.

        Question 22. Secretary Buttigieg is aggressively implementing
    President Biden's Executive Order requiring all Federal actions to
    prioritize environmental justice concerns--as defined by statistical
    disparities as a result of an action, rather than an actual intent to
    discriminate--in planning and funding decisions. On this basis,
    Secretary Buttigieg decided cancel the I-10 expansion project and DOT
    is now actively considering the removal of barrier highways constructed
    decades ago.
        While the merits of such actions are up for debate, there can be no
    question that this now reflects official DOT policy in evaluating
    project design when making funding allocations. The proposed alignment
    in Waller County creates the exact problems the Administration seeks to
    prevent--placing an artificial barrier between minority neighborhoods
    and high economic growth zones. This Executive Order was used to stop a
    desperately needed highway expansion that offered significant benefits
    in terms of both freight and personal travel that would reduce the
    costs of good and travel for folks, including those in the affected
    communities, yet it still ran afoul of these requirements.
        Your project offers no benefits relative to freight movement and
    will necessarily cater to the wealthy if there's any chance of it being
    economically viable--making it demonstrably less valuable to the
    population at large and those in affected communities than a project
    already denied.
        Considering these facts, why would Secretary Buttigieg not take
    similar actions to stop your project and how does this potential create
    liabilities for the taxpayer if your receive funding prior to receiving
    all necessary approvals?
        Answer. It would not be appropriate for us to speculate on future
    actions that Secretary Buttigieg may or may not undertake.

        Question 23. Are there alternative alignments that could redress
    DOT's likely concerns and if so, how much will this add to the bill for
    the American taxpayer?
        Answer. FRA selected the preferred alternative in its Record of
    Decision published in November 2020.

        Question 24. It's my understanding that your project will not be
    interoperable with any other rail system--is that correct?
        Answer. For a consumer/passenger buying a ticket our train will be
    seamlessly connected thanks to our joint ticketing arrangement with
    Amtrak. From the paramount aspect of safety, the service-proven Tokaido
    Shinkansen's dedicated, standalone system has achieved unsurpassed and
    optimal safety and performance by not sharing crowded and dangerous
    freight rail lines.

        Question 25. If so, why should Congress or the Administration
    provide funding for a one off line that precludes other systems from
    operating on TCR's tracks--in other words, there is no potential value
    for this project outside of TCR's operations so why would we fund it?
        Answer. See question 24.

        Question 26. What value add does this project provide to the
    national rail network--couldn't a much greater value be obtained at a
    significantly lower cost using interoperable systems?
        Answer. Once operational, Texas Central will be the US showcase for
    a true high-speed rail system capable of replicating the unsurpassed
    safety and performance record of the world-renowned Shinkansen system.
    We do not believe that interoperable rail systems can operate at a
    lower cost while maintaining the same end to end safety, speed, and
    efficiency of a purpose built high-speed rail.

        Question 27. Who developed the concept for this project and made
    the initial determination that it was necessary--in short, who's idea
    was the project in the first place?
        Answer. Exhaustive ridership studies have pointed to Houston-Dallas
    as being the city pair with the highest demand for America's first true
    high-speed rail system. The Shinkansen technology was selected due to
    its exemplary safety and performance record. The project evolved from
    meetings with international transportation experts and mostly Texas-
    based private investors.

        Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to William J. Flynn, Chief
      Executive Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

        Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
    a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
    to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
        Answer. No. We do think cabotage requirements should apply to
    passenger rail industry operations, just as they do to commercial
    aviation and domestic maritime shipping. Congress has already addressed
    some of the competitive and national security challenges of foreign
    state-owned rail car manufacturing here in the U.S., but similar
    enterprises could own and operate vital rail infrastructure under
    today's laws. If foreign operators are permitted to operate in the
    United States, there should be a level playing field--American
    operators must have the same rights to operate in the foreign
    operators' countries--and foreign government-controlled entities should
    not be able to buy their way in to controlling vital elements of the
    U.S. infrastructure. While Amtrak supports private sector partnerships,
    ultimately, the issue of foreign ownership of U.S. infrastructure
    assets is a matter of policy that should be carefully considered by the
    federal government.

        Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
    middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
    the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
    exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
    like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
    that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
    of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
    rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
    intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
    funding:
        a.  Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
        Answer. Yes, Amtrak's proposed projects would meet or exceed
    applicable Buy America and domestic preference requirements, just as
    our current procurements do.

        b.  Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
    carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
    project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
    Railroad Retirement?
        Answer. Yes, Amtrak fits the legal definition of a rail carrier for
    the purposes of this question; our employees, including new employees
    hired as a result of our proposed Northeast Corridor enhancements or
    nationwide corridor development program, will continue to receive
    benefits that correspond with this status. Notably, the great majority
    of Amtrak employees are also represented by a collective bargaining
    unit. Amtrak believes that every operator of intercity passenger rail--
    high-speed or otherwise--should be an interstate rail carrier and
    subject to the same basic federal requirements and rules that Amtrak
    follows.

        Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
    billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
    billion in rail investment.
        Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
    build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
    would you recommend we prioritize?
        Answer. The amounts that this Committee and the Biden
    administration have proposed are both visionary and completely
    appropriate; if invested in intercity passenger rail, such sums would
    represent a major step in the direction of the improved and expanded
    service that Amtrak seeks to operate.
        More specifically, the NEC Commission, representing Amtrak, the
    states served by the NEC, and USDOT, have concluded the NEC needs
    approximately $42 billion in additional investment to be returned to a
    state of good repair (which would further improve trip times). In
    addition to addressing the SOGR backlog, the package of upgrades
    described in my testimony, which would significantly improve trip times
    on the NEC, would require an additional approximately $48 billion in
    investment. Amtrak is seeking an additional investment of approximately
    $75 billion to advance its corridor development program, which could
    advance more than 30 new corridor routes and enhancements to more than
    20 existing corridors.
        To be clear, the current level of service around the country is the
    product of a decades-long trend in which intercity passenger rail
    received only a tiny fraction of public resources made available to
    support highway and air travel. The nation's passenger rail network is
    in serious need of significant investments. These investments are well
    worth making in their own right--and should Congress wish to pursue
    truly high-speed rail service on new corridors outside the Northeast,
    they are a crucial first step towards achieving that goal.
        Potential investments of capital funding provided for the Northeast
    Corridor would be prioritized by Amtrak and its partners based upon
    infrastructure planning developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission,
    including the expected CONNECT NEC 2035 first-phase implementation plan
    for the selected alternative from the FRA's NEC FUTURE record of
    decision. (Amtrak has called for creation of a new program that would
    provide dedicated ``cost-to-complete'' funding for the relevant
    projects; a one-pager describing that proposal is included as Appendix
    A.) New corridors and enhancements to existing corridors that are
    advanced through Amtrak's proposed corridor development program would
    be identified and prioritized by Amtrak in partnership with the Federal
    Railroad Administration and after consultation with other relevant
    stakeholders, pursuant to a process outlined in Amtrak's
    reauthorization proposal. To advance a new or enhanced corridor, Amtrak
    must have a willing state partner. (Legislative language containing
    that proposed process is contained in Appendix B.)
       Appendix A: Amtrak's Proposal for an NEC BeST (Bridges, Stations,
                                Tunnels) Program
    Background:
        The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the nation's busiest railroad,
    connecting the Northeast's major metropolitan economies. In normal
    times, NEC commuter railroads and Amtrak's high-speed intercity
    services provide a critical transportation link for hundreds of
    thousands of daily commuters, business travelers, students, and
    families. The reliability of this vital transportation artery is
    challenged by aging infrastructure, and NEC passengers experience
    frequent service disruptions due to infrastructure failures.
        Dozens of NEC bridges, stations, and tunnels are beyond their
    design life, and while structurally safe, many are over 100 years old
    and in need of immediate replacement or rehabilitation. These assets
    are ``shared benefit'' assets, meaning that they support both commuter
    rail operations (supported by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA))
    and Amtrak's intercity rail operations (supported by the Federal
    Railroad Administration (FRA)). Yet due to the sheer size of these
    assets and the costs associated with replacing/rehabilitating them, no
    federal program currently exists within the FRA or FTA that is
    appropriately structured to address the necessary shared benefit
    ``mega-projects'' and their unique challenges.
        FRA's `NEC FUTURE' planning and programmatic environmental impact
    statement (EIS) defined the necessity of bringing, and requirements to
    bring, the NEC to a state of good repair and provide additional
    capacity and service enhancements necessary to achieve faster, more
    reliable service. This vision cannot be achieved under the current
    piecemeal, uncoordinated funding options.
    Policy Proposal:
        A new long-term federal investment program, herein proposed as the
    NEC Bridges, Stations and Tunnels (BeST) program, could overcome these
    challenges by providing dedicated funding to the critical projects
    necessary to improve the NEC. This program would fund 90% of the
    combined intercity and commuter shares of the projects required to meet
    the service goals of the NEC FUTURE program, to bring the corridor to a
    state of good repair, to improve trip times, to increase reliability,
    and to expand capacity. These improvements would in turn create jobs,
    improve quality of life, reduce carbon emissions, and generate economic
    growth; they would also pave the way for high-speed opportunities along
    the NEC.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            FYs 22-26
                                                                                            Estimated    FYs 22-26
                                                                               ``Order of     Total       Federal
        NEC BeST Projects (north to south)                  State             Magnitude''    Funding   Authorization
                                                                                  Cost       Needed       Request
                                                                              (billion $)   (billion    (billion $)
                                                                                               $)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. Boston South Station Expansion.........  MA..........................         $2.3        $0.2           $0.2
    2. Warwick/T.F. Green Airport Station       RI..........................         $0.2        $0.2           $0.2
     Expansion.
    3. Hartford Station Relocation............  CT..........................         $0.6        $0.3           $0.3
    4. Connecticut Bridge Replacement Program   CT..........................         $4.7        $2.0           $1.9
     (Conn. River [SPG], Conn. River [SLE],
     Devon, Saugatuck, Walk, Cos Cob).
    5. New Haven and Stamford Station           CT..........................         $0.2        $0.2           $0.2
     Improvements.
    6. Pelham Bay Bridge Replacement..........  NY..........................         $0.5        $0.1           $0.1
    7. Penn Station NY Reconstruction Master    NY..........................         $5.5        $2.0           $2.0
     Plan.
    8. Gateway Program--Penn Station NY         NY..........................        $10.9        $8.2           $7.8
     Expansion.
    9. Gateway Program--Hudson Tunnel Project.  NY/NJ.......................        $11.6        $7.2           $6.7
    10. Gateway Program--Additional Projects    NJ..........................         $9.3        $1.9           $1.7
     (Sawtooth Bridge, Dock Bridge, Harrison
     4th Track, Portal South Bridge, Bergen
     Loop, Secaucus Station, NJT Rail Yard).
    11. Newark Penn Station Improvements......  NJ..........................         $0.5        $0.2           $0.2
    12. Philadelphia Gray 30th Street Station   PA..........................         $0.4        $0.3           $0.3
     District Plan.
    13. Maryland Bridge Rehabilitation and      MD..........................         $3.5        $2.0           $1.8
     Replacement Program (Susquehanna, Bush
     River, Gunpowder).
    14. B&P Tunnel Program (and enabling        MD..........................         $4.8        $1.9           $1.8
     projects).
    15. Baltimore Penn Station Master Plan....  MD..........................         $0.1        $0.1           $0.1
    16. Washington Union Station Plan.........  DC..........................        $10.7        $2.5           $2.3
    17. NEC Trip Time and Capacity Improvement  ALL.........................        $11.2        $3.7           $3.5
     Program (specific projects under
     development by NEC Commission's CONNECT
     NEC 2035 program).
                                                                             ---------------------------------------
      TOTAL...................................                                      $77.0       $33.0          $31.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       All figures in billions of dollars and may reflect rounding. All
            figures are estimates, and subject to further analysis.

    Proposed Legislative Language:
        The legislative language below is in the form of proposed bill
    text, and not a mark-up of existing U.S. Code provisions.

    SEC. 1108. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR BRIDGES, STATIONS AND TUNNELS (BeST)
    PROGRAM.

        (a) Purpose.--The Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter in this
    section referred to as ``the Secretary'') shall make apportionments
    under this section for improvements to rail bridges, stations and
    tunnels on the Northeast Corridor to achieve the state of good repair,
    travel time and other objectives of the 2017 Federal Railroad
    Administration NEC FUTURE Record of Decision, and for other projects
    necessary to achieve such objectives.
        (b) Inventory.--Every two years the Secretary shall publish a
    Northeast Corridor Project Inventory (hereinafter in this section
    referred to as the ``NEC Inventory'') to designate projects for funding
    and sponsors for these projects. The inventory shall be made up of
    bridge, station, and tunnel capital projects, and other capital
    projects that enable the state of good repair, travel time, service
    frequency and other objectives of the Selected Alternative in the 2017
    NEC FUTURE Record of Decision, and shall be consistent with the most
    recent Service Development Plan described in subsection 24904(d) of
    title 49, United States Code (hereinafter in this section referred to
    as the ``Service Development Plan''). Each NEC Inventory shall include
    a method for apportioning funds to project sponsors for a period of two
    fiscal years that will lead to the implementation of the sequencing
    plan for such projects described in such Service Development Plan. The
    Secretary may alter the apportionments as necessary if recipients are
    not carrying out such schedule, or not supporting other agencies in
    doing so.
        (c) Expenditure of Funds.--
            (1) The division of non-federal costs for apportionments
            provided under this section shall be in accordance with
            subsection 24905(c) of title 49, United States Code.
            (2) The share payable toward projects from funds provided
            pursuant to this section shall be 90 percent, except that, for
            fiscal years 2021 and 2022, such share shall be 100 percent.
            Project sponsors may satisfy the requirement for non-program
            match using any other source of funds, including federal funds
            provided from sources other than this section.
            (3) Funds apportioned under this section shall be available
            until expended.
            (4) Eligible recipients for apportionments under this section
            shall be a State (including the District of Columbia); a group
            of States; an Interstate Compact; a public agency or publicly
            chartered authority established by one or more States; a
            political subdivision of a State; the National Railroad
            Passenger Corporation, acting on its own behalf or under a
            cooperative agreement with one or more States; or any
            combination of these entities.
            (5) Apportionments shall be used for projects named in the most
            recent NEC Inventory, including all construction and pre-
            construction expenses, including land acquisition, or for
            reimbursement of advance construction amounts expended pursuant
            to subsection (e).
            (6) For purposes of this section, the term ``Northeast
            Corridor'' shall have the meaning provided in subsection
            24904(e) of title 49, United States Code.
            (7) Apportionments made to the National Railroad Passenger
            Corporation shall be provided to the corporation in accordance
            with section 24319 of title 49, United States Code.
            (8) One-half of one percent of the funds made available to the
            Secretary to carry out this section shall be available for
            administration of this section.
        (d) Program Management.--Every two years each project sponsor shall
    submit to the Northeast Corridor Commission described in section 24905
    of Title 49, United States Code (hereafter in this section referred to
    as ``the NEC Commission'') an Agency Program Management Plan in
    accordance with the formats, methods, and procedures developed by the
    NEC Commission. Each such plan shall describe the schedules, management
    actions, workforce availability, interagency agreements, permitting,
    track outage availability, and other factors that will determine the
    agency's ability to carry out this section, or support other agencies
    to do so, according to the schedule in the most recent Service
    Development Plan. Every two years the NEC Commission shall submit to
    the Secretary an updated Service Development Plan that describes the
    schedule and sequencing of all capital projects on the corridor, and
    estimates the amount each sponsor agency will need in program funding
    for each of the next two fiscal years to carry out projects according
    to the plan.
        (e) Advance Construction.--The Secretary may authorize a project
    sponsor to proceed with a project under this section using funds other
    than those apportioned under this section, provided the project is
    undertaken in accordance with all requirements applicable to the
    project under this section. Funds apportioned to the project sponsor
    under this section in future fiscal years may be used to reimburse the
    project sponsor up to the total advance construction amounts expended.
        (f) Maintenance of Effort.--The Secretary shall ensure that project
    sponsors adhere to the capital and operating contribution provisions of
    the Northeast Corridor Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation
    Policy. If a project sponsor does not maintain this level of effort,
    the Secretary may withhold funds under this subsection from a project
    sponsor up to the amount of the project sponsor's shortfall, and, if
    the shortfall is not remedied after a reasonable period, may
    permanently reallocate such funds to other project sponsors.
        (g) Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
    regarding matters not directly addressed in this section, funds
    provided under this section, under any other part of title 49, United
    States Code, or under title 23, United States Code, when applied to
    projects named in the NEC Inventory, shall be administered as
    follows:--
            (1) Funds received by Amtrak shall be administered as if they
            had been provided under subtitle V, part C of title 49, United
            States Code;
            (2) Funds received by a designated recipient under chapter 53
            of title 49, United States Code, shall be administered as if
            they had been provided under chapter 53 of Title 49, United
            States Code; and
            (3) Funds received by a state (including the District of
            Columbia), a political subdivision of state, or a public
            authority, where the entity is not a designated recipient under
            chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, shall be
            administered as if they had been provided under chapter 244 of
            title 49, United States Code.
        This subsection shall apply whether such funds are provided
    directly as federal grants to a project sponsor or are transferred to
    the project sponsor by a grantee that originally received the funds.
        Appendix B: Legislative Language for Amtrak's Proposed Corridor
                    Development Program (Amtrak Connects US)
    SEC. __. CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

        (a) Authorization.--Subject to the notification requirements of
    this section, Amtrak may utilize the amounts appropriated in each
    fiscal year pursuant to [the proposed authorization of funding for
    Amtrak's existing National Network grant] for capital and operating
    costs associated with the planning, development, acquisition,
    construction, and operation of--
            (1) new, improved, or expanded intercity passenger rail
            services and related infrastructure, stations, facilities, and
            rolling stock on corridors defined under Sections 24102(7)(B)
            and (D) of Title 49, United States Code; and
            (2) providing daily service on Long-Distance routes serving
            corridors that had less frequent service during fiscal year
            2019.
        (b) Required Participation.--
            (1) Partnerships.--Amtrak and the Federal Railroad
            Administration shall jointly create a standard process for
            states, localities, host railroads, and other parties to seek
            corridor development partnerships with Amtrak for corridor
            improvements and expansions.
            (2) State and local government advisory council.--Amtrak, with
            the participation of the Federal Railroad Administration, shall
            establish a Corridor Development Advisory Council made up of a
            geographically representative cohort of state and local
            government transportation officials to provide guidance and
            input related to corridor and project identification and plan
            development under subsections (d) and (e) of this section.
            (3) State rail plans.--Amtrak shall utilize state rail plans as
            described in subsection (d)(1) and other studies and analyses
            by states and regional entities to inform corridor selection,
            plan development, and partnership decisions.
            (4) Memorandum of understanding.--Before Amtrak incurs any
            costs pursuant to subsections (h)(2)-(4), and before a state,
            locality, or other party pays any costs pursuant to subsection
            (h), Amtrak and the entity or entities involved shall enter
            into a memorandum of understanding or agreement for sharing
            operating and capital costs in accordance with this section,
            except for routes identified under subsection (i)(2).
        (c) Eligible Types of Routes.--Routes eligible under this program
    are--
            (1) existing or new corridor routes defined under Section
            24102(7)(D) of Title 49, United States Code;
            (2) federally-designated high-speed rail corridors defined
            under Section 24102(7)(B) of Title 49, United States Code; and
            (3) long distance routes defined under Section 24107(7)(C) of
            Title 49 that had less than daily service during fiscal year
            2019.
        (d) Identification of Corridors.--Amtrak and the Federal Railroad
    Administration shall undertake a joint process to study, identify, and
    prioritize high-potential corridors for Amtrak partnership, investment,
    and development. In carrying out this process, Amtrak and the Federal
    Railroad Administration shall--
            (1) consider--
                    (A) projected ridership, revenues, capital investment,
                    and operating funding requirements;
                    (B) anticipated environmental, congestion mitigation,
                    and other public benefits;
                    (C) projected trip times and their competitiveness with
                    those of other transportation modes;
                    (D) committed or anticipated state, regional
                    transportation authority, or other non-federal funding
                    for operating and capital costs;
                    (E) whether the corridor is a Federally designated
                    high-speed rail corridor;
                    (F) whether initiation or improvement of intercity
                    passenger rail service along the corridor is included
                    in a state's approved state rail plan developed
                    pursuant to Chapter 227 of Title 49, United States
                    Code;
                    (G) whether the corridor serves historically
                    underserved and low-income communities;
                    (H) whether initiation or improvement of intercity
                    passenger rail service along the corridor would benefit
                    or improve connectivity with existing or planned
                    transportation services of other modes;
                    (I) whether the corridor connects at least two of the
                    top 50 metropolitan areas by population;
                    (J) whether initiation or improvement of intercity
                    passenger rail service along the corridor would enhance
                    the regional equity and geographic diversity of
                    Amtrak's intercity passenger rail service;
                    (K) whether the corridor currently has Long-Distance
                    service that corridor service could complement; and
                    (L) whether the corridor can be well-integrated into
                    the National Network and create benefits for Amtrak's
                    other routes and services; and
            (2) consult with--
                    (A) appropriate state and regional transportation
                    authorities, local officials, host railroads, and other
                    stakeholders; and
                    (B) representatives of employee labor organizations
                    representing railroad and other appropriate employees.
        (e) Corridor Development Plans.--For corridors identified under
    subsection (d), Amtrak, in consultation with the Federal Railroad
    Administration, may develop a corridor development plan for each
    corridor which shall include--
            (1) the identification of projects to improve, expand, or
            develop intercity passenger rail service;
            (2) a detailed description of the new, expanded or improved
            intercity passenger rail service that would result from such
            projects, including train frequencies, peak and average
            operating speeds, and trip times;
            (3) a schedule and any associated phasing of projects and
            related service initiation or changes;
            (4) identification of project sponsors and entities expected to
            participate in the project, including identification of roles
            and responsibilities for design, construction, operation,
            maintenance, and other key aspects of the corridor development
            plan, including carrying out improvements and operating
            resulting services;
            (5) a description of how the project would comply with Federal
            rail safety and security laws, orders, and regulations;
            (6) the locations of existing and proposed stations;
            (7) the type of rolling stock and other equipment to be used;
            (8) a financial plan identifying--
                    (A) projected annual revenue;
                    (B) projected annual ridership;
                    (C) estimated initial capital investments;
                    (D) annual operating and capital costs; and
                    (E) projected levels of public and private investment
                    and funding;
            (9) a description of how the project would contribute to the
            development of the National Network and an intermodal plan
            describing how the new or improved corridor facilitates travel
            connections with other transportation services;
            (10) a description of the anticipated environmental benefits;
            and
            (11) a description of the project's impacts on highway and
            aviation congestion, energy consumption, land use, and economic
            development in the service area.
        (f) Approval.--Amtrak shall submit each plan developed under
    subsection (e) to the Secretary of Transportation for approval. The
    Secretary shall review each plan and make a decision on plan approval
    within 60 days of submission by Amtrak.
        (g) Notification.--
            (1) In general.--Following approval of a corridor development
            plan under subsection (f) and prior to incurring or committing
            to incur expenditures pursuant to subsections (h)(2)-(4) in a
            given fiscal year, Amtrak shall include within its submission
            of the general and legislative annual report for that year
            required by Section 24315(b) of Title 49, United States Code,
            descriptions of--
                    (A) the proposed corridors for development in that
                    fiscal year, including:
                            (i) corridor improvement programs;
                            (ii) corridor expansion programs;
                            (iii) new corridor programs; and
                            (iv) long distance route frequency expansions
                            described in subsection (c)(3);
                    (B) the service to be provided, including service
                    frequency and trip time;
                    (C) the total Amtrak capital investments required for
                    each corridor and the costs of such development efforts
                    in that fiscal year;
                    (D) projected ridership, revenues, and operating and
                    capital costs during the first five years of operation,
                    and the projected sources of funding for such costs;
                    (E) access and services required from host railroads,
                    and the status of agreements or orders governing such
                    access and services; and
                    (F) the status of compliance with any applicable
                    environmental or safety laws and regulations.
        (h) Use of Funds.--Funding authorized under this section for a
    fiscal year following the submission of notification required under
    subsection (g) may be used by Amtrak to carry out corridor development
    plans including providing for:
            (1) up to 100% of the costs of planning, developing, designing
            and supporting the implementation of new, improved or
            additional services on high-potential corridors, including the
            costs of any necessary environmental reviews, safety planning
            costs, and costs incurred in connection with proceedings under
            subsections (a) and (e) of Section 24308 of Title 49 to obtain
            access orders and determine compensation terms for operations
            on host railroads;
            (2) up to 100% of the costs of capital investments required to
            initiate the new, improved, or additional services, including
            the costs of acquiring or improving rail lines and other
            infrastructure, stations and other facilities, and equipment;
            and
            (3) operating and capital costs of the new, improved, or
            additional services not funded by revenues during the first two
            years of operation; and
            (4) operating and capital costs for the new, improved, or
            additional services during subsequent years of operation not
            funded by revenues, or for services subject to paragraph
            (i)(2).
        (i) State Funding.--In the third through fifth years of operation
    of new, improved, or additional services funded under this section, one
    or more states, regional transportation authorities, local governments,
    or other parties with which Amtrak has entered into an agreement shall
    pay the following percentages of their operating and capital costs
    determined under the methodology developed pursuant to section 209 of
    Public Law 110-432 (codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. 24101)--
            (1) Phase-In.--
                    (A) 10% in the third year;
                    (B) 20% in the fourth year;
                    (C) 50% in the fifth year; and
                    (D) 100% thereafter.
            (2) Non-applicability.--The requirement for partner funding
            shall not apply to--
                    (A) long distance routes on which service frequency is
                    increased to up to daily service;
                    (B) new routes over 500 miles;
                    (C) extensions of existing routes that increase the
                    route distance to over 500 miles; and
                    (D) portions of new routes within Canada or Mexico.

     Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Josh Giegel, Chief Executive
                    Officer and Cofounder, Virgin Hyperloop

        Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
    a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
    to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
        Answer. We have a broad investor base, including foreign companies,
    reflecting the appeal of our technology. However, we pride ourselves on
    being a U.S.-based company with our intellectual property and product
    development in the United States. We have the potential to export our
    high-speed transportation technology to other countries, as well as
    provide it to customers for use in the U.S. We see this as in the U.S.
    public interest compared to losing a market to non-U.S. competitors.
    Hyperloop technology would create opportunities for the United States
    to provide world leadership in a new industry utilizing an emerging and
    innovative, energy efficient, environmentally friendly, high-speed,
    mass surface transportation technology. In addition, it would stimulate
    growth in U.S. manufacturing jobs to support the emerging and
    innovative energy efficient technology, including for export.
    Deployment of this advanced transportation technology system could also
    encourage additional spinoff technology benefits, such as fostering an
    emerging advanced battery manufacturing industry in the United States,
    among other things.
        Importantly, we are a technology company and do not envision being
    the service provider, so funding sources for a service, including
    associated assets would be determined by public and private partners
    who would operate specific routes.

        Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
    middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
    the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
    exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
    like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
    that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
    of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
    rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
    intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
    funding:
        a.  Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
        Answer. We would comply with any Buy America requirements
    applicable to us and understand that any partners of ours who would
    file applications for and receive Federal funds would comply with
    applicable requirements.

        b.  Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
    carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
    project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
    Railroad Retirement?
        Answer. Again, we are a technology company. Service that utilizes
    our technology, like service that utilizes other technology, will be
    structured by those who provide service. The service providers will
    choose how to structure their operations. A service provider will have
    to meet requirements applicable to their operations in providing
    service.

        Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
    billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
    billion in rail investment.
        Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
    build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
    would you recommend we prioritize?
        Answer. ``High-speed'' rail projects and other rail projects should
    be awarded funding on their merits: that is to say upon consideration
    of whether they are truly high-speed, environmentally friendly, energy
    efficient, and high capacity, with safety advantages. We have not asked
    Congress for funding for a specific project. We do recommend that
    Congress ensure that a project utilizing hyperloop technology is
    eligible to compete for funds that are available to a rail applicant
    (whether rail funds or multimodal funds) and for any funds available
    for advanced or emerging transportation technology, particularly given
    the many benefits of the technology. Hyperloop with no or low direct
    emissions from operations offers great promise of dramatically
    improving energy efficiency and substantially reducing emissions of our
    national transportation systems, among its many other benefits. Beyond
    energy efficiency and emissions benefits, hyperloop could fundamentally
    improve American mobility. Trips that take hours today could be reduced
    to mere minutes.
        We also think Congress should dedicate at least some funding to
    truly high-speed, or high-speed capable innovative projects, which we
    think hyperloop can be competitive for and win. Whatever total amount
    of funding Congress advances in this legislation, it is in our national
    interest to take a step forward by ensuring a portion is allocated to
    investments in emerging technologies that meet our transportation
    challenges and have zero direct emissions, like hyperloop. The lack of
    investment in transportation technologies of the future is putting the
    U.S. further behind. In the public interest as to high-speed rail, the
    U.S. should be prioritizing projects that are energy efficient, reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions, are extremely high-speed, and increase
    safety. Similar criteria should apply as to funds not specifically for
    ``high-speed'' projects; even then, the speed capability of a project's
    technology should be a factor.

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Andres de Leon, Chief Executive
                 Officer, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

        Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
    a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
    to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
        Answer. We are expecting to license our technology to
    infrastructure and transportation operators with previous experience
    (and history) in specific regions and countries. We believe that the
    funding will come from a consortium of various entities, some of which
    could be private foreign investments operating at international levels
    with strong infrastructure reputations.
        Ownership of the infra-assets and its operations can be shared with
    foreign entities with deep knowledge and experience in the
    infrastructure and transportation industry. Incentivizing national
    infrastructure operators to join the hyperloop industry and own and
    operate the system with public grants could facilitate the creation of
    national know-how that can be exported abroad in the future.

        Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
    middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
    the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
    exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
    like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
    that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
    of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
    rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
    intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
    funding:
        a.  Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
        Answer. The majority of HyperloopTT's system components are open
    source and can be manufactured in a variety of locations, including the
    United States. It is anticipated that conformance with Buy America
    provisions will be satisfied through partnerships with local and
    regional suppliers that are part of the HyperloopTT licensing package.

        b.  Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
    carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
    project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
    Railroad Retirement?
        Answer. A HyperloopTT system fits the description of a ``railroad''
    and ``rail carrier'' as defined by 49 CFR Sec.  20102. Ultimately, the
    determination as to whether system operator employees engaged in
    operations are eligible for Railroad Retirement Act benefits lies with
    the Railroad Retirement Board.

        Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
    billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
    billion in rail investment.
        Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
    build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
    would you recommend we prioritize?
        Answer. A good way to stretch $60-$80 billion of federal funding is
    to incentivize private financing of commercially viable high-speed
    rail, maglev and hyperloop projects by using refundable tax credits on
    the order of 50-65%. Private sector financing would accelerate the
    development of these key transportation resources that would in turn
    generate billions more in private transportation-oriented development.
        Tax credits would not be captured until the project capital is
    spent, thereby expanding the economy before the credit is claimed.
    Operating income and real property will generate local, state and
    federal tax revenue for the life of the project as well as thousands of
    jobs in a growing employment sector.
        Absent the tax credits, hundreds-of-billions of dollars' worth of
    projects would never be built without federal grants or loan
    guarantees, far exceeding the limited federal funding capacities and
    leaving many needed projects unfunded. Projects left unbuilt would not
    create needed jobs, economic activity, and associated development,
    resulting in tax revenue never realized and needed transportation
    improvements never delivered.

      Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to P. Michael Reininger, Chief
                  Executive Officer, Brightline Holdings, LLC

        Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
    a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
    to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
        Answer. Brightline is a U.S. entity and is not owned or controlled
    by a foreign country. To date, Brightline has invested over $4 billion
    of private capital in our projects in Florida, California and Nevada.
    Our preference and our practice is to rely on private capital in
    addition to U.S. grant, loan and private activity bond programs and we
    believe infrastructure projects of all types should have access to a
    wide array of financing options within established laws and regulatory
    frameworks.

        Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
    middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
    the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
    exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
    like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
    that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
    of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
    rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
    intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
    funding:
        a.  Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
        Answer. Brightline will comply with all applicable federal rules
    and regulations, including Buy America.

        b.  Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
    carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
    project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
    Railroad Retirement?
        Answer. Brightline Florida is a ``rail carrier'' pursuant to 49
    U.S.C. Sec.  10102(5) and Brightline West will become a rail carrier
    upon commencement of operations between California and Nevada. Only the
    employees of rail carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface
    Transportation Board are eligible to participate in Railroad
    Retirement. When Brightline West initiates operations between Nevada
    and California, it will become a rail carrier subject to the
    jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board and accordingly will
    meet the definition of an employer that will be subject to the Railroad
    Retirement Act. Brightline's current Florida rail operations are not
    conducted as part of the interstate rail network and therefore are not
    subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board, as
    that agency found in 2012.

        Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
    billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
    billion in rail investment.
        Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
    build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
    would you recommend we prioritize?
        Answer. Establishing a national high-speed rail network will
    require more than $60-$80 billion. That figure is a modest sum in
    comparison to competitive global economies that invest more on a
    regular basis and are benefitted by existing networks and
    infrastructure.
        Brightline operates the only private high-speed system in the US in
    Florida, showcasing the potential of American high-speed passenger
    rail. We carried more than a million passengers in our first full year
    and learned a lot that is worth sharing from the investment of over $4
    billion over the last 10 years.
        We believe Congress must consider ways to best stretch federal
    dollars by prioritizing the following:
        1.  Both public and private models. We encourage you not to
    consolidate around a single approach, and not to underestimate the
    power private investment can bring toward crafting a national network.
        2.  Systems and corridors that can be completed in a timely and
    short-term manner. Actual and tangible results will increase additional
    investment into high-speed rail.
        3.  Shovel ready, advanced projects that only require partial
    funding. Projects that are well advanced should incentivize and result
    in public-private partnerships of various types, including grants and
    loans.
        4.  Project opportunities where the investment of public dollars
    can be leveraged alongside co-investment from private sector
    participants to complete systems more quickly and with less commitment
    from the public sector. This will stretch the public dollar and allow
    funds to be disbursed more widely, establishing more opportunities.

     Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and
                 Chief Executive Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC

        Question 1. Do you operate or envision service primarily funded by
    a foreign nation? Do you think it's a good idea for foreign countries
    to own or operate infrastructure assets in America?
        Answer. Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR) is a franchised
    railroad company that is composed solely of U.S. investors. BWRR
    intends to own the SCMAGLEV system. The Government of Japan has
    expressed a willingness to contribute to the cost of the construction
    of the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) from Washington, DC, to
    Baltimore, MD. The Government of Japan's contribution would likely be
    in the form of a loan to BWRR. We do not envision that the Government
    of Japan or Japanese private companies would have a substantial--if
    any--ownership stake in the project or would operate the project. We
    strongly believe that major U.S. infrastructure assets should be owned
    by U.S. entities. However, we recognize the tremendous deficit
    accumulated in US infrastructure investment. We cannot rely solely on
    US government funding and should look to new approaches that embrace
    government financing as well private sector participation, and to the
    extent possible offshore sources of funding. In the case of the
    SCMAGLEV project, the source of additional financial support (not
    ownership or operation) is our closest ally in the Asia-Pacific region,
    Japan.

        Question 2. Many of us like to talk the talk about rebuilding the
    middle-class. Well, investing in high-speed rail is a great way to walk
    the walk. Investing in rail creates middle-class jobs, which cannot be
    exported. Federal programs that invest in rail come with conditions--
    like Buy America that supports U.S. manufacturers, and the requirement
    that railroad workers earn traditional railroad employee benefits. All
    of our Panel 2 witnesses advocate for some form of Federal high-speed
    rail investment. I'd like to know how many of the proposed projects
    intend to comply with the existing requirements for Federal railroad
    funding:
        a.  Will your proposed project comply with Buy America?
        Answer. Yes, our Project will comply with Buy America. To the
    extent that certain elements of the system cannot be sourced in the
    United States, BWRR will seek waivers or other relief in accordance
    with applicable laws and regulations. We believe that after the initial
    phase is constructed between Baltimore and Washington, DC there will be
    opportunities to develop a U.S. manufacturing capability and supply
    chain to support the future extension of the system to New York City
    and beyond. Adoption of new technology gives rise to new opportunities
    for manufacturing and jobs that did not exist prior to the
    technological advances.

        b.  Does your company fit the U.S. legal definition of a ``rail
    carrier''? In other words, will the workers who will work on your
    project once it's operational earn traditional railroad benefits, like
    Railroad Retirement?
        Answer. The SCMAGLEV Project will be part of the ``general system
    of rail transportation'' in the definition of ``rail carrier'' in 49
    U.S.C. 10102(5). As such we would anticipate that the Project and its
    employees would be covered by all applicable provisions, including
    those related to Railroad Retirement.

        Question 3. Our reauthorization bill last year recommended $60
    billion of investment for rail; the President has recommended $80
    billion in rail investment.
        Do you think this level of investment will make it possible to
    build all of the high-speed rail corridors we are discussing today? How
    would you recommend we prioritize?
        Answer. To fully build out the high-speed rail corridors identified
    by Congress and the Department of Transportation (USDOT) to true
    international standards of 186 mph and higher--if done entirely at U.S.
    taxpayer expense--would certainly consume all of the amounts proposed
    in H.R. 2 and by President Biden, and still would not be sufficient.
        Priority should be given to those corridors and projects where
    federal spending would bring the biggest benefits: adding needed
    capacity in concentrated areas; reducing automobile traffic and its
    concomitant environmental consequences; leveraging the greatest
    additional non-federal financial support to make federal spending go
    further; and creating the greatest economic opportunities.

    Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman and Chief
                    Executive Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC

        Question 1. Mr. Rogers, the first phase of your project, Baltimore-
    Washington, is the result of a selection process conducted over
    multiple infrastructure bills and the MagLev Deployment Program.
    SCMAGLEV is proven technology, operating in Japan. What is the current
    status of your project, and why was the Northeast Corridor determined
    to be an ideal candidate for this technology?
        Answer. Thank you for the Question, Congressman Moulton.
        As you note, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project was one of the
    original seven (7) projects selected for funding by the U.S. Federal
    Railroad Administration (FRA) pursuant to the Maglev Deployment Program
    (MDP) passed by Congress in TEA-21 in 1998.
        Following the FRA's assessment of feasibility studies submitted by
    the seven competing projects, the Baltimore-Washington Project was one
    of two down-selected by the USDOT for further development, including
    the commencement of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).
        In SAFETEA-LU and Technical Corrections, the Congress provided
    additional contract authority for further work on the projects
    remaining in the MDP competition. Congress subsequently withdrew its
    support for one of those projects in Nevada, and the Pennsylvania DOT
    returned the funds it been awarded for a project in Pittsburgh. Those
    funds were re-advertised and subsequently awarded to the State of
    Maryland for the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project. In 2019, the
    Georgia Department of Transportation returned funds to the FRA that had
    been awarded but not obligated for the sole remaining additional
    project between Atlanta and Chattanooga.
        As such, the State of Maryland and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev
    Project have effectively won the competition which Congress created in
    1998 and has supported in subsequent authorizations and appropriations,
    and to which the USDOT and FRA have awarded additional funds in the
    years since.
        Pursuant to an FRA grant, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    (DEIS) for the Project was published on January 15 of this year, and
    the public comment period recently closed on Monday, May 24, 2021. At
    the same time, BWRR has been working with FRA on System Technical
    Familiarization (STF) efforts. STF activities are intended to educate
    FRA on the various safety critical elements of the SCMAGLEV so that FRA
    can determine the most appropriate safety framework for the system in
    the future, with input from all of the work conducted in approving the
    SCMAGLEV for public transportation in Japan.
        For the remainder of 2021, we anticipate that the FRA, the Maryland
    Department of Transportation (MDOT) and its contractors will determine
    how to appropriately address the various DEIS comments that have been
    submitted, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures for Project
    environmental impacts. We also intend to hold further STF meetings with
    FRA.
        To your last point, the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project was
    selected as the best initial operating segment within the framework of
    the MDP, which also requires the project to identify its further
    extensions in a designated high speed rail corridor, in our case:
    Wilmington, DE; Philadelphia, PA; Newark, NJ; and, New York, NY, and in
    future on to Boston.
        The selection of the Northeast Corridor was not altogether
    surprising to us, in that USDOT evaluations of the regional corridors
    most suited for Maglev and very-high-speed rail have always pointed to
    the Northeast Corridor as the candidate corridor most likely to develop
    the ridership sufficient to cover its costs. With 75% of all the
    commuter rail riders concentrated in our corridor and still only
    accounting for 5% of the travel, the Northeast Corridor should be a
    priority for generation skipping technological improvement as a
    solution to severe traffic congestion, pollution, economic efficiency
    and combatting climate change.

     Questions from Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick to Wayne L. Rogers, Chairman
               and Chief Executive Officer, Northeast Maglev, LLC

        Question 1. Mr. Rogers, as you noted in your testimony, Congress
    has repeatedly expressed its support for maglev technology by providing
    tens of millions of dollars in contract authority and appropriations
    for the FRA's Maglev Deployment Program since it was established by
    this committee in TEA-21 in 1998. Despite congressional support for
    this innovative technology, the written testimony from the Amtrak
    witness is critical of SC Maglev technology and the Baltimore-
    Washington Maglev Project. Would you please respond to this criticism?
        Answer. Thank you for the question, Congressman Fitzpatrick.
        We were quite surprised by the testimony offered by the Amtrak
    witness. It contains a series of misleading remarks. For example, the
    testimony states that maglev systems have been rejected by any country
    that has ever considered them. This is manifestly false, as Japan is
    currently extending its SCMAGLEV system between Tokyo and Nagoya,
    despite having already had in the same corridor in place a HSR system
    superior to the US since 1964. Moreover, the testimony states that our
    Project would be constructed through heavily populated areas. In fact,
    we have deliberately opted to construct our Project primarily in deep
    tunnels to avoid impacts to such areas. The testimony also states that
    our Project would only benefit wealthy travelers when, in reality, our
    variable pricing strategy would enable trips for as little as $27. We
    strongly believe that the demographics of the Northeast Corridor point
    to a future where AMTRAK and SCMAGLEV are complimentary services that
    meet the travel demands of this growing megaregion. We need to serve
    more than 5% of the travelers in the most congested corridor in the
    country. Current service cannot be expanded to serve the public that
    adding a new service, totally passenger dedicated, like SCMAGLEV could
    do. Japan, that has had HSR for over 50 years is proof of this concept
    as they expand their SCMAGLEV system.

                                 [all]