[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 [email protected].
    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]