Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 37 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1578-H1596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PASSENGER RAIL REFORM AND INVESTMENT ACT OF 2015

General Leave

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on H.R. 749.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hardy). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 134 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 749.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1235

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 749) to reauthorize Federal support for passenger rail programs,
and for other purposes, with Mr. Harris in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Denham and Ranking
Members DeFazio and Capuano, who have all worked well on this bill
together. I also would like to thank Ms. Brown who, in the last
Congress, when this bill started on its path, to thank her for her
great work. Ms. Brown is from the State of Florida.
Since I became chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee in the 112th
Congress and since I have become chairman of the full committee, this
has been one of my top priorities: to pass a bipartisan passenger rail
bill that reforms Amtrak. I am so happy to be here on the floor today
with the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015.
The previous passenger rail bill passed in 2008 and resulted in some
real improvements to Amtrak, which we are seeing today. Ridership is up
14 percent; revenue is up 37 percent; and, in the Northeast corridor,
the profits are up an amazing 250 percent.
The last bill created the Northeast Corridor Commission, which has
helped the States, Amtrak, and DOT finally work together on planning
the future of the corridor; however, more work needs to be done to help
Amtrak maximize its strengths and tackle some of its longstanding
challenges.
That is why we introduced the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment
Act of 2015. I know some of my colleagues are skeptical about Amtrak
and passenger rail in general. Because of its current structure,
Amtrak's finances have not been transparent to either Congress or to
consumers.
The profits on the Northeast corridor have subsidized money-losing
routes, masking the true cost of these services. This bill makes
significant reforms to eliminate those issues.
In particular, we focus on the Northeast corridor in this bill, which
truly is a nationally significant transportation corridor. With 18
percent of our population and 20 percent of our GDP produced in the
Northeast corridor on 3 percent of our land mass, it is the most
densely populated area of the United States and one of the most densely
populated in the world, so passenger rail is needed.
By separating Amtrak into business lines, the Northeast corridor
profits stay in the corridor, allowing for more investment there.
Setting the other business lines apart allows the corporation to make
better-informed business decisions about those lines' operations. This
will help make Amtrak's operations much more transparent for both the
States and the Congress.
By focusing our resources on the Northeast corridor and existing
corridors where passenger rail makes sense, we will help to improve
passenger rail without breaking the bank.

[[Page H1579]]

Finally, we also provide environmental review streamlining reforms
for rail projects, something that is important to not only passenger
rail, but it also will include freight rail in these environmental
reviews, which will help them to be able to expand their rail network
to help America move its freight more effectively and efficiently.
It is something we are already doing in highway and transit and water
infrastructure projects. This will help make our limited Federal
dollars go further because we all know time is money when dealing with
infrastructure projects.
I know on both sides of the aisle--my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle want to do more and have more money invested, which I
understand, and there needs to be more investment. My colleagues on my
side of the aisle think we may be spending too much money.
These reforms are going to move Amtrak in a positive direction. It is
not going to solve all of our problems today, but I think it
substantially moves the ball down the field to get to a point where
someday maybe Amtrak can stand on its own two feet.
This debate has been raging in this assembly for the last 40 or so
years. My colleagues on the other side point out that no passenger rail
operates without subsidies. They are correct.
Also, there is only one freight rail system in the world that doesn't
get subsidies, and that is in the United States of America, our freight
rail system. I think we can move Amtrak in that direction.
My colleagues on my side of the aisle argue, Amtrak has been a
failure, let's get rid of it. I don't think that is the answer either
because, as I mentioned earlier, there are places in this country that
desperately need to have an expanded passenger rail service.
When the United States is moving towards 400 million people, we are
going to need that passenger rail service in various parts of this
country. We need to make sure that we are building today a better
Amtrak to serve the future of the American people and of a people that
is growing.
This is a bipartisan bill, so neither side got everything that it
wants, but it is a good strong reform bill that I firmly believe will
significantly improve Amtrak.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I look forward
to working with the Senate to take it to the President's desk.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the chairman, Chairman Shuster, from Pennsylvania;
subcommittee chairman Mr. Denham; and the ranking member serving on our
side, Mike Capuano, for a bill that is an okay bill.
This is in the tradition, the greatest tradition, of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which we have differences,
as the chairman pointed out, over the future of rail and the funding
levels that are needed, but there is consensus that this is important
to the country, and we can continue that debate as we continue to
improve the operations of Amtrak.
An awful lot of the focus is on the Northeast corridor. That is
essentially the ``cash cow.'' In the Northeast corridor now in the
rail-air market, 78 percent of the D.C.-New York travelers are now
using the train. That is a success story. There is a lot of focus on
that, but Amtrak is bigger than that. We are a large nation.
I remember after 9/11, when I had a Federal official here from my
region, head of the Bonneville Power Administration, and he needed to
get back for some important meetings in the West, he took the train.
There was no plane option.
Maintaining a national network, I believe, is essential. We need to
keep that perspective in mind as we look at Amtrak as a whole, not just
a corridor in one of the most populated parts of the country.
In the West, we have two long-distance trains: the Coast Starlight
from Seattle through Portland, Eugene, down to Los Angeles; and the
Empire Builder, which starts in Seattle and Portland, converges in
Spokane--kind of a unique route--and continues on to Chicago.
We also have a State-supported route in Oregon, which is an
international route. It goes from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, British
Columbia. Ridership last year was almost up to 1 million on that route,
as Interstate 5 becomes more and more problematic and congested,
particularly over the line in Washington State. These are essential
assets to give people an alternative.
I would also say that we need to be planning for a better future.
Last year, Oregon did get about a $20 million grant through the
Intercity Passenger Rail grant program to finish planning and
preliminary engineering work for the possibility of a higher-speed
route--not high speed. Unfortunately, that is not in the cards in the
near future.
We have a wonderful train set, an Acela train set, which can travel a
lot faster than it can now because of the current routing and
congestion. We are planning on doing that, working cooperatively with
the freight railroads and also looking at some alternative routes for
at least part of that train.
I would also point out that this bill, the railroads themselves, the
freight railroads, which the chairman mentioned, are investing a
phenomenal amount of money in upgrading their track, their systems, and
their power; but there are still a lot of projects that are undone and
don't have potential revenue sources, particularly for the short lines.

{time} 1245

I am really pleased that this bill streamlines the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, RRIF. It sounds like
something my dog would say. In any case, this is sort of a very
infinitely bureaucratic and lengthy process. The bill requires that the
loans be done within 45 days of getting a complete application, and it
also contains strong Buy America provisions. It will be all American
steel, iron, and manufactured goods. I think that is an improvement on
two levels, and that is a needed change.
Finally, as the chairman said, there are some of us on this side of
the aisle who believe we should be making more investment so that
Amtrak can have a program to acquire more power, so it can make
improvements on some of the very aged and decrepit parts of the Neck
here and in other places where they have critical infrastructure needs
around the country. That was not to be in this bill, but this bill does
leave us that option in the future. I strongly--and I believe most on
this side of the aisle will strongly--support this legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Hardy).
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to support this bill.
I believe it will bring efficiency, savings, and greater transparency
to Amtrak. Instead of increasing government interference, this bill
will actually create development opportunities for the private sector
and encourage non-Federal participation by unlocking new revenue
streams. This bill is common sense and straightforward. It reduces red
tape by streamlining environmental issues.
As a former small business owner, it makes perfect sense to me that
we direct Amtrak to target investments where there is the best
potential for success and conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis for
long distance routes.
Finally, I am excited to further empower States to have a greater
role in managing their routes. States must be equal partners with a
greater say in ensuring that the residents--Amtrak passengers--get the
best benefit. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act of 2015. This bill authorizes $7 billion for passenger
rail, including $5.8 billion for Amtrak, over the next 4 years.
This bill is not perfect, but I appreciate the committee leadership's
efforts to develop a bill in a bipartisan manner.
This bill significantly reforms the way Amtrak funding is authorized.

[[Page H1580]]

Rather than authorizing separate appropriations for debt service,
capital, and operating expenses, the bill creates two new accounts--a
Northeast corridor account and a national network account. The bill
also creates a new program to provide grants to the States, funded at
$300 million annually, of which $150 million is dedicated to the
Northeast corridor.
The Northeast corridor region contains 4 of the 10 largest
metropolitan areas in the country. It is home to more than 51 million
people, and our regional economy is the fifth-largest in the world
between France and Germany. If the Northeast corridor were to
unexpectedly shut down for just one day, the potential impact on the
U.S. economy could be $100 million in transportation-related impacts
and productivity losses.
There is no question that it is absolutely in our national interest
to do everything we can to maintain and develop the Northeast corridor,
but New Yorkers also understand the importance of maintaining a
national network, so I am pleased that the bill grants Amtrak the
flexibility to transfer funds, if needed, to keep the national rail
system operational. The bill also requires a more detailed plan for
implementing specific improvements to the Northeast corridor that is
free of poison pill, antilabor provisions, and it applies Buy America
to the RRIF loan program.
All of this is good, but we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture,
which is that we are still woefully underfunding Amtrak. We spend more
than $50 billion per year on highways and transit and over $15 billion
on aviation, while Amtrak is just $1.4 billion, or less than 2 percent,
of Federal transportation spending. This is despite the fact that the
rail system needs at least $52 billion, or $2.6 billion per year, for
20 years just to meet ridership demands and bring the system into a
state of good repair.
The President's FY16 budget request, on the other hand, includes $5
billion for rail. Half of that is intended to bring public rail assets
throughout the country to a state of good repair, including $550
million for the Northeast corridor; $2 billion is for high-speed rail
and commuter rail; and $204 million is for the FRA rail safety
measures, proven to be so necessary by the accidents on Metro North in
New York and Connecticut.
Unfortunately, this bill before us today simply authorizes current
funding levels, but given the budget constraints imposed by the
majority, it is probably the best bill we can hope for right now if we
want to move a bipartisan bill.
I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for
their efforts to advance an Amtrak reauthorization bill that moves the
process forward. I look forward to working with them and the rest of my
colleagues to make sure passenger rail receives the attention and
resources it deserves. For now, this is a good bill, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), the newest member of
the T&I Committee.
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
bipartisan solution to enhance passenger rail networks and strengthen
this country's transportation infrastructure.
Amtrak's Northeast and Keystone rail lines are a critical thread in
the transportation fabric of my district in southeastern Pennsylvania.
For me, Amtrak equals SEPTA, in many respects, as 90 percent of the
2,000 daily train rides along the Northeast corridor are regional
commuter lines like SEPTA.
This important legislation does something very significant, Mr.
Chairman. It keeps revenues generated on the Northeast corridor for
reinvestment along the Northeast corridor. It compels Amtrak, the
Federal Railroad Administration, and States to work together to develop
and implement a 5-year Northeast corridor capital investment plan. For
my district, it offers more promise for the Schuylkill Metro project,
for the concept of utilizing existing rail beds known as the Green Line
along route 29 in Montgomery and Chester Counties. And of course, it
makes available more Federal funding for new train stations to replace
aging train stations such as Paoli and Downingtown.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Denham for their smart,
reasoned approach and for their leadership in strengthening the
passenger rail network. This is a great bill. It is great for
southeastern Pennsylvania, and it is great for this country.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Capuano for yielding me this time.
I want to thank the capable chairman of the committee, Mr. Shuster,
and the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio, for bringing this important Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act before us.
Mr. Chairman, as the Representative of the busiest Amtrak station in
Ohio at Toledo and the Amtrak stations in Sandusky and Elyria-Lorain, I
rise to urge the passage of this important bill to continue and advance
passenger rail service across our Nation.
When I was born, the population of the United States was 146 million
people. Today, it surpasses 320 million. By 2020, our Nation's
population is projected to reach over half a billion people--over 500
million. As time moves forward, the necessity for passenger rail will
become clearer with each passing day.
Many of our major urban centers are clogged with traffic jams daily,
and the railroads across my region of our continent have severe freight
rail and passenger rail conflicts because they are forced to use the
same tracks. Imagine that we are living in the 21st century, and we are
still tethered to 19th century rail pathways.
Passenger rail travel in Ohio is booming despite these constraints--
up from 108,000 passengers in 2007 to 160,000 passengers in 2013. A
trend in my district has grown as well, with Toledo passengers on the
northwest Ohio corridor increasing from 53,000 to 77,000 over the same
time. Imagine the traffic jams if all of these individuals traveled by
car instead of rail.
It is not just the northeastern part of our Nation that needs added
attention to passenger rail service, as important as that is. It should
also include the Great Lakes Region. The corridor that stretches the
length of my district and connects our industrial heartland corridor
from Pittsburgh to Cleveland to Sandusky to Toledo to Gary to Chicago
needs special attention, too.
During an extended stretch last year, between July and September, the
Capitol Limited, which runs from Washington, D.C., to Chicago and
includes my northern Ohio stretch, completed only 2.7 percent of its
trips on time--2.7 percent out of 100 percent on time. The dramatic
increase of freight rail consistently bumps passenger service. We need
both, but what we have are these lengthy delays to passenger service
across our vast region.
I have two articles I would like to insert into the Record detailing
these troubles.

[From the Blade]

Amtrak Trains Often Trickle Into Toledo After Rash of Delays

(By David Patch)

Christine Smith boarded Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited in
Chicago on Tuesday night to visit a friend in Toledo.
The train left Chicago two hours late and made it only
about 15 miles to Indiana's northwest corner, where it sat
for about three hours, Ms. Smith recalled. By the time it got
to Toledo, it was six hours behind schedule.
It was only the latest of a series of late Amtrak trains
the Melbourne, Australia, resident said she had encountered
since arriving in Los Angeles last month and riding from
there to San Francisco, Portland, Ore., Spokane, and Chicago.
Late trains are nothing new for Amtrak, particularly for
the overnight, long-distance trains such as those that serve
Toledo--the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited. Trains
running more than three hours late have become the norm
recently, and they have often lost that much or more just on
the Chicago-Toledo portion of trips. The Capitol Limited was
12 hours behind schedule on Sunday.
While there have been exceptions, by far the biggest
obstacle to Amtrak's time-keeping across northern Indiana and
northern Ohio has been tracks blocked by freight trains
belonging to Norfolk Southern, which owns and operates the
line Amtrak uses between Chicago and Cleveland.
``It's absolutely unbelievable what they're doing to the
American people. It's a fraud,'' Ms. Smith said. ``Every
train I've been on

[[Page H1581]]

has been late leaving and late arriving, and freight trains
are given as the reason.''
During the 12 months that ended in August, Capitol Limited
trains arrived at their end stations in Chicago or Washington
within 30 minutes of schedule only 22.5 percent of the time,
while the Lake Shore reached Chicago or New York on time 30.8
percent of the time, according to Amtrak.
But August itself was significantly worse, and September
data, when available, is unlikely to show improvement. In
August, the best performer was the eastbound Lake Shore,
which reached New York within 30 minutes of schedule 6.5
percent of the time--two trips. The westbound was late into
Chicago every day of the month, and the Capitol Limiteds
arrived on time once in each direction.
Late westbound arrivals in Chicago also translate to late
eastbound departures, because Amtrak lacks spare equipment in
Chicago to make up replacement trains when equipment arrives
late, and it also does not have enough engineers and
conductors to always have an extra train crew ready to
replace one that has worked the maximum 12-hour shift set by
federal regulation.
Marc Magliari, an Amtrak spokesman in Chicago, laid even
the late departures from Chicago at Norfolk Southern's feet.
``If the train is late getting to Chicago, it's most likely
going to be late eastbound while we're servicing equipment
and getting proper rest for our crews,'' Mr. Magliari said.
``The result is to drive up our costs, dissatisfy our
passengers, and create `never again' riders.''
While its ridership pales in comparison to major stations
like New York and Chicago, Toledo historically has been
Amtrak's busiest Ohio stop, and its ridership has declined of
late.
After peaking at more than 90,000 riders in 2010 and 2011,
Toledo's Amtrak ridership dropped to 87,073 in 2012 and
86,252 last year, according to statistics provided to the
Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, which owns the Toledo
station.
During the first seven months of 2014, Amtrak's Toledo
ridership has fallen by another 7 percent, those statistics
show.
David Pidgeon, a Norfolk Southern spokesman, said the
freight-train backlog is a product of ``more trains and
capacity challenges in the corridor between Chicago and
Cleveland'' because the freight traffic exceeds what the
company handled before the 2008 recession.
``We generally have a cooperative relationship with Amtrak
because we are each other's landlords,'' Mr. Pidgeon said.
``We run on their network and they run on ours, so there's
plenty of business and personal incentive to keep the
cooperation going.
``We want to keep freight and passenger trains moving,
period.''
One of the busiest pieces of railroad in the entire United
States, Norfolk Southern's double-track main has become, to
varying degrees, an obstacle course of stopped and slow-
moving freight trains.
A particular growth area has been oil shipments from the
Bakken oilfields of North Dakota to terminals on the East
Coast, rail traffic that simply didn't exist before 2009 but
now accounts for dozens of trains through Toledo each week.

Rail expansion

Norfolk Southern is building a third main track between
Chesterton and Gary, Ind., a 30-mile section that is the
busiest stretch of the region's busiest freight railroad. It
includes several major junctions and runs through the heart
of one of America's most heavily industrialized areas, the
steel mills and a major oil refinery along Lake Michigan's
southern shore. Until that third track is ready for use, its
construction is impairing train traffic.
When only one track is open for trains, traffic only goes
one way while opposing trains wait. The spot where Ms.
Smith's train stopped is near the west end of the Chesterton-
Gary construction zone. LaPorte, Ind.--where the Chicago-
bound Amtrak trains from Toledo have often sat for hours in
recent weeks--is near the east end.
And not only have passenger trains to and from Toledo been
affected by that problem, so too have Amtrak's five daily
round-trip trains between Chicago and Detroit, Grand Rapids,
and Port Huron, Mich., which use the same rails west of
Chesterton.
The third track in northwest Indiana is one of several
capacity-improvement projects under way on Norfolk Southern
in the region.
Most prominent among the others is a $160 million expansion
of the Bellevue, Ohio, yard, which will double in size when
the project is done later this year, easing congestion at
other yards, Mr. Pidgeon said.
That ``will ease the demand for space in Elkhart and
hopefully significantly reduce transit times for our freight
trains, keeping us moving and the network fluid,'' he said.
Norfolk Southern has 50 new locomotives soon to be
delivered and also has bought several hundred used ones in
the past year or two to address shortages.
It also is hiring close to 100 new train conductors in the
Toledo area and has transferred 120 more from other parts of
its system to the Cleveland-Chicago corridor to alleviate
crew shortages, Mr. Pidgeon said.
The Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers, an advocacy
group, cites another factor in the freight-train delays: An
automated dispatching system Norfolk Southern has been
introducing on portions of its rail network during the past
two years.
The system, called the Auto-Router, is designed to mimic a
job human train dispatchers have done for years--deciding
which trains run on which tracks at what time. The automated
system could supplement that work, allowing the human
dispatchers to work larger territories, or eventually it
could replace them.
Train dispatching is a job with a lot of variables because
freight trains don't all travel at the same speed. Some are
long, heavy, and slow; others are short and, ideally, fast.
Hills, track repairs, and certain trains' need to stop at
yards along the way to pick up or drop off cars also can
factor into how trains are dispatched.
Critics of the system including OARP--also known as All
Aboard Ohio--and Norfolk Southern sources who spoke on
condition of anonymity because they're not authorized to talk
to reporters said the Auto-Router system's flaws are
contributing to the railroad's congestion.

Passenger complaints

While Amtrak riders interviewed by The Blade said they
understand how the passenger trains are at the freight
railroads' mercy, some said the passenger-train operator
could handle the situation better, too.
Jean McGraw of Port Clinton, who boarded the Boston-bound
Lake Shore in Sandusky in late September to visit a sister in
New Hampshire, said she and her travel companion got two
emails ``in the middle of the night'' about train delays but
got no updates after that.
And when the bus Ms. McGraw and other Boston-bound
passengers rode from Albany got to Boston at 4 a.m. the next
day, the station there was locked. The passengers cajoled the
bus driver into letting them take shelter in a neighboring
bus garage, she said.
``That was it--it was ridiculous,'' Ms. McGraw said.
As compensation, Amtrak offered vouchers good toward future
train travel. Ms. McGraw said she hopes to use hers once the
current problems are resolved, but her companion swore off
train travel because of the experience.
Untested is whether Norfolk Southern's handling of Amtrak
violates a 1973 federal law directing the freight railroads
to give the passenger trains preferential handling.
A more recent federal law, passed in 2008, directed the
Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak to develop
performance standards for Amtrak trains.
However, a later appellate court ruling stalled this.
According to the rail passengers association, Amtrak's
overall on-time performance has plummeted since that 2013
ruling, which is the subject of a pending Supreme Court
appeal.
Dan McMackin, a United Parcel Service spokesman, said his
company has recently changed the train routes it uses to move
packages in response to train delays, though he did not
confirm that the company specifically removed its cargo from
the Norfolk Southern route.
``We have seen some recent lower reliability in several
lanes and are adjusting accordingly, with guidance from our
rail service partners as to appropriate network
corrections,'' Mr. McMackin said. ``While there have been
lanes affected over the last several months, we expect long-
term reliability to return and most of our adjustments are
seen as temporary.''
But while UPS may be ready to send packages back to the
Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago corridor once Norfolk Southern's
problems are resolved, Amtrak could have a harder time
winning back Tanya Miller, of Taylor, Mich., one of the
riders who boarded the New York-bound train in Toledo on
Wednesday morning.
``This is my first time and my very last time taking
Amtrak,'' she said. ``I'm not recommending Amtrak to
anyone.''
____

[From The Plain Dealer]

Solutions Sought for Chronic Amtrak, Freight Train Delays in Northern
Ohio

(By Alison Grant)

Cleveland, OH.--Passengers sitting on the tracks one recent
morning near an idled Lake Shore Limited train in Cleveland
had a lot of time to kill.
Their eastbound train was late getting out of Chicago Union
Station and pulled into Cleveland about 3\1/2\ hours after
its scheduled arrival of 5:35 a.m.
Then a switch problem or a downed power line on the CSX
tracks between downtown Cleveland and Collinwood--reports
varied--meant another delay of five hours before the Amtrak
train pulled out of town.
Ed and Rosemary Sobala, heading home to Buffalo after a
train trip to the canyon-lands of Arizona, Utah and Nevada,
weren't too surprised.
Not one of the Amtraks on their two-week journey was on
time, they said. In fact, not one was less than 5\1/2\ hours
late. When the Lake Shore Limited was stalled in Cleveland,
they were headed home to Buffalo--four hours away by car.
``A number of us riders jokingly referred to an Amtrak
schedule as a wish list more than a schedule,'' Ed Sobala
said.
Delays like this--and they're chronic nationwide, including
along northern Ohio's east-west corridor, for both Amtrak
passenger trains and freight trains--have prompted three of
this region's metropolitan planning organizations to set up a
rail alliance to work on improving what is the fastest-
growing U.S. transportation mode in the 21st century.

[[Page H1582]]

``Passenger rail ridership has increased dramatically, but
specifically on that corridor,'' said Grace Gallucci,
executive director of the Northeast Ohio Areawide
Coordinating Agency, which joined with the Toledo
Metropolitan Area Council of Governments and the Erie County
Regional Planning Commission to form the Northern Ohio Rail
Alliance.
``And the freight railroads are aggressively pursuing
increasing their capacity.''
Gallucci attributes the increase in passenger rail traffic
to economics and demographics--high gas prices, expensive air
fares, Millennials more interested in public transportation
than their parents.
Four daily passenger trains carry enough passengers to fill
a dozen Boeing 737s each day along the tracks in northern
Ohio, according to the advocacy group All Aboard Ohio, and 70
daily freight trains carry about 20,000 truckload equivalents
of cargo.
Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited service, from Chicago through
Ohio to New York City and Boston, averages 1,100 passengers a
day.
One of the rail alliance's first goals is to persuade the
Ohio Department of Transportation to release $938,000 that
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur secured in 2010 for rail planning.
The money was earmarked for ODOT to study high-speed rail,
but that project was scrubbed by Gov. John Kasich when he
took office. Kasich said high-speed rail was a ``money pit''
because it would cost the state about $17 million a year to
maintain and operate, with no guarantee enough tickets could
be sold to cover the expenses.
The train money has been sitting in ODOT's accounts since.
``The study area has changed many times,'' agency spokesman
Steve Faulkner explained.
``Most recently, folks in northern Ohio changed (it) to
include a review of the Cleveland to Toledo route. That's
new. For that reason, all interested parties...must again
meet in person to discuss and agree on details of the study
plan.''
ODOT last week set up a meeting for Oct. 28 to discuss the
funding, Gallucci said.
The Northern Ohio Rail Alliance and All Aboard Ohio say
redesigning the Amtrak stations in northern Ohio would do a
lot to improve rail service. Trains stopping at Cleveland,
Elyria and Sandusky can process passengers from only one
track of the two-track railway.
That requires trains to ``slalom'' between tracks, and
during the crossover, both tracks at the station are
occupied. Opposing rail traffic must stop. The result: At
least 80 minutes of delay to the four passenger trains that
arrive nightly at each station, and as much or more delay to
freight traffic.
The station in Toledo can process passengers from both
tracks but only at ground-level walkways not platforms.
Gallucci said rail projects should qualify for money
overseen by ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council--
which typically deals with projects that add capacity to Ohio
roads. She said rail station work also should be eligible for
money the state is raising for ODOT projects by letting the
Ohio Turnpike issue bonds that will be paid off with toll
increases.
``We have to get away from this idea that every
transportation mode competes against the others,'' Gallucci
said.
Record high oil shipments from the Bakken Fields in the
Dakotas to East Coast refineries have added to freight
delays, including in Cleveland.
Of the 60 to 90 freight trains that rumble daily through
Northeast Ohio on the tracks owned and operated by Norfolk
Southern, nine are oil trains. And that's due to grow by
another 18 trains in coming months, said Ken Prendergast, All
Aboard Ohio executive director.
In September, officials representing agricultural, auto and
chemical industries told a Senate committee that widespread
delays in freight shipments were affecting an array of
industries and forcing some out of business. The Associated
Press reported that lawmakers displayed a photo of a giant
mound of wheat languishing in North Dakota because farmers
couldn't get a railroad company to ship it.
Jonathan Fields and Jacquie Mon, traveling on the Empire
Builder from Portland, Oregon to Albany, New York, were
delayed five hours in Minot, North Dakota, when their train
was put on a siding track while oil trains moved past.
``We thought Amtrak trains had priority to the freight-
owned rails if they were within a certain window of time,''
Mon wrote in an email. ``I spent some time Googling the
subject and learned about the oil trains, the judge who ruled
that it wasn't legal to require the freight trains to give
Amtrak priority and that his decision was being appealed.''
Then came the hang-up in Cleveland, a stone's throw from
FirstEnergy Stadium.
``If there had been a game, we would have had enough time
for a leisurely tailgate party, time to settle into our seats
and watch the teams warmup, enjoy--more or less--the game,
and time for drinks and play-call second guessing after the
game,'' Fields said.
Sobala said he concluded that Amtrak isn't reliable for
travelers on firm schedules.
``One couple departed the sleeper car with their luggage
during the delay in Cleveland,'' he said. ``They decided to
fly to New York because they had an appointment they couldn't
miss. I last saw them get in a cab headed for the Cleveland
airport.''

Ms. KAPTUR. Customers are understandably frustrated. Our region needs
customer-convenient hours and passenger-friendly arrivals and
departures. Our Great Lakes Region needs a capital investment plan,
too, for passenger service. We need evaluation for State-supported
routes. Our region needs expedited attention, methodology development,
and service planning to remedy growing congestion inefficiencies that
benefit no one, not the freight lines, not the passenger service, and
surely not the communities they are supposed to serve--nor connectivity
to inner city passenger rail service.
I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Shuster and of Ranking Member
DeFazio, as well as of Subcommittee Chair Denham and Ranking Member
Capuano, in working together to produce this bill.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAPUANO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. KAPTUR. I ask that our vast Midwest industrial heartland region
not be excluded for alternative passenger rail service pilot programs,
opportunities for rail investment, station improvements, and historic
preservation, nor for public-private partnerships that can advance
modern passenger rail in this vital corridor of our country.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, and I urge
the adoption of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham). He is one of the principal
authors of this piece of legislation, the gentleman who did yeoman's
work on this bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about bipartisanship
in this body. Oftentimes, a bill will come to the floor, and you may
hope that one party or the other might throw some votes your way or
that you might get some last-minute votes. True bipartisanship is what
has happened on this committee.
I, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Ranking Member
Capuano have worked together to not only form a bipartisan bill but to
actually educate every one of our Members. We want to talk to Members
of both parties and now of even both Houses to make sure that we are
actually reforming something that is going to create not only a more
efficient system but create American jobs.
I want to thank each of those individuals for their willingness not
only to work together but to work hard. It takes a lot of time to set
up separate meetings with every single one of your colleagues in order
to explain all of the intricacies on such a large bill. In this case,
we have done that. We saw bipartisan and unanimous support first out of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last year and now, this
year, again, unanimous support out of the Rules Committee on a bill for
which we get real structural reform.
After 35 years, this splits off the Northeast corridor. So, if you
are riding the train on the Northeast corridor, your profits--the money
that each rider is spending--will actually go back to fixing your rail.
We make sure that you are upgrading the infrastructure, that you are
creating jobs, and that you are creating a more efficient Amtrak. That
is something the riders on the Northeast corridor should be proud of,
and it should be a lesson for every other corridor across the country--
that you get to keep your profits and improve your infrastructure and
actually have greater ridership numbers in the process.
Amtrak has made some great strides. In this bill, we are cutting our
authorizations by 40 percent. I think it is a great opportunity to
actually highlight some of the successes that they have had but to also
demand more.
This also defunds high-speed rail. We want to make sure that what is
happening in California does not happen in the rest of the country.
Where you have great rail projects going with higher speed--with high-
speed moving into New York and Florida--we want to make sure that we
don't have the same challenges that are plaguing California's high-
speed rail, which has tripled in price.

[[Page H1583]]

We also have other conservative issues in here that will get rid of
waste. That includes the food and beverage losses that we see year
after year. We want to make sure that Amtrak is moving in the right
direction to eliminate those losses.

{time} 1300

This builds American infrastructure and creates jobs to fix century-
old infrastructure problems. It unlocks the RRIF program, a program
which has billions of dollars in it, yet every year when you are going
to upgrade your infrastructure when you have a new project, this is one
of the least areas that you want to work in because RRIF is so much of
a challenge.
There are long timelines, long approval processes. If you are going
to invest in something, you want to know: Am I going to win out this
loan application, or is it something that is going to actually hinder
or slow down our project?
We want to streamline that. We want to have those who need the access
to capital that are going to improve our infrastructure to actually
have the benefits of that program.
This introduces competition and leverages the private sector to
reduce the Amtrak subsidies and actually use the stations to be more
profitable. Amtrak has stations in many key cities that can be utilized
to increase profits from everything from the restaurants and shopping
that they have, but to also be able to advertise in those stations. And
advertise on the right-of-way, the right of way that Amtrak has to be
able to use billboards, set up cell sites. There is so much more
profitability that we can have by having Amtrak as a partner.
I just want to touch on a couple of final issues.
One of the challenges that freight rails have is the red tape they
have to go through on the environmental process and on the historical
review process. In this reform bill, we are not saying that you don't
have to go through that process; we are just saying that we are going
to streamline it so you can go through it quickly. There ought to be
timelines. You ought to be able to meet timelines so you can plan your
infrastructure and you can plan those jobs so you can actually move
America forward and move our rail forward at the same time.
This also empowers States. We have taken this reform bill to the next
level. We reformed the State routes last PRIIA bill. We are doing it
again this time to empower States to have more control over their
routes. If a train is going to come through their district or their
State, they ought to have some input on not only whether or not it is
going to stop, but also increasing ridership in that process. They
ought to have some skin in the game, and this allows them to do that.
One area that I want to mention that I think has created more
bipartisanship than anything else in this bill, and somebody else that
should receive some recognition is actually my dog, Lilly, who will now
be able to ride on the train.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DENHAM. If you are on the Northeast corridor and you have never
ridden the rail before because you have a pet that you either have to
leave at home or a pet that you are going to drive because of, you will
now have the opportunity to ride on Amtrak--not only in the Northeast
corridor, but all across the country. This is something that we have
had pet owners reach out to us on from every different State asking
that they actually be able to do this.
I can take my dog back and forth to California on the airplane. I pay
an additional fee to do that, but it is something that provides me the
ability to be able to travel with my pet. Why wouldn't we do that same
thing on Amtrak?
If Amtrak is looking for more riders, if they are looking for greater
revenue, why wouldn't they be able to compete in this one more area
with our airlines? I mean, this is a commonsense opportunity for those
who want to take rail to actually be able to travel with their pet. I
would like to say that it has been something that has not only helped
us build a path, but brought on greater bipartisanship.
This bill has taken a lot of work. I appreciate the chairman's work
and the ranking member's work on this. It has been a great bipartisan
effort. I am looking forward to its passage today.
Mr. CAPUANO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Amtrak reauthorization before us today
speaks volumes for the chairman and ranking member of our committee. It
is the first Amtrak bill on the floor since 2008. It is a bipartisan
bill. But, it also speaks volumes that Amtrak has performed so well
without additional revenue.
This bill leaves Amtrak at about level funding, just a tiny bit more.
When we call Amtrak ``America's railroad,'' that is not a metaphor, Mr.
Chairman. All of its stock is owned by the Department of
Transportation. The reason for that is that the private sector in the
1970s found running a railroad to be a money-losing proposition and
asked the Federal Government to take over Amtrak.
Amtrak, of course, is a fiction. It is structured as a private
company. But like every railroad in the world, it is either subsidized
by the government or the public cannot afford to ride. The bill has
almost no new funding, but even without new funding, Amtrak has already
scored great points.
Amtrak has essentially overseen the revival of train travel in the
United States of America, and it has done so in a way that the
government can take almost no credit for. For example, ticket revenue
was $1.5 billion in 2005; then we go 5 years later to 2010, it is $1.8
billion; and today, it is $2.1 billion. Yet the average ticket has
increased only $5 every 5 years over that period of time. Amtrak knows
what the market is about, and it has grown based on volume, not
revenue. The railroad has seen phenomenal growth in passengers,
reaching records as high as its highest record in 1988, when the
equipment was much newer.
An important measure of efficiency is simply the number of seats
filled. More Amtrak seats are filled today than at any time. Its on-
time performance is above 80 percent, and that is amazing when you
consider that Amtrak does not own most of the tracks it runs over. They
are owned by the freight companies. The first cause of delay, frequent
freight traffic. The second cause of delay, reduced speed needed for
maintenance.
Amtrak has shown it knows how to run a railroad, and to run a
railroad on time, but Amtrak needs to be able to run a 21st century
railroad.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAPUANO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. NORTON. Until the Federal Government owns up to investing more in
the railroad that we own, Amtrak will be running a 20th century
railroad--or is it a 19th century railroad, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I really appreciate Chairman Denham coming up and talking about some
of the important reforms in this bill. I want to add to that.
One of the key things we do in this bill is we are empowering the
States. There are 19 States and 21 State-supported lines. I just look
to Pennsylvania. I think they are a prime example of what happens when
States work together with Amtrak.
Again, this bill, for my colleagues, especially on my side of the
aisle who I hope are listening to this debate, we are going to empower
those States to have equal say with Amtrak when you are investing
dollars in these various lines around the country. An example is the
Keystone line in Pennsylvania from Harrisburg to Philadelphia.
Several years ago, the State of Pennsylvania and Amtrak each invested
$100 million into that line. They decreased the travel time by about 20
minutes from Philadelphia to Harrisburg and Harrisburg to Philadelphia.
They increased their reliability, and the ridership over the last
several years has gone up almost 80 percent. This year, this first
quarter, they are projecting they are going to make a profit on that
line. That is exactly the kind of example that we in Congress need to
look to.
My friends on both sides of the aisle, we can have a better Amtrak if
we do

[[Page H1584]]

things more businesslike. The reforms that are in this bill are
significant.
To name just a few of the lines that are State-supported:
The Heartland Flyer in Texas. And Texas right now is investing
private dollars into rail. These lines that are State sponsored, it is
going to help them develop these lines. Environmental reviews,
streamlining the review process, that is going to help Texas when those
dollars are invested.
If you look at to the Sacramento to San Francisco corridor, another
State-sponsored line, when Amtrak and California get together, they can
make improvements on that line to help the movement of people in that
corridor.
Going to Virginia and Washington--Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk,
and Richmond, Virginia, the State of Virginia and Amtrak can come
together and make those investments. That is one of the fastest growing
corridors in America. I know the folks who represent Norfolk and
southern Virginia and Washington, D.C., a growing area, passenger rail
is essential.
Another corridor is Raleigh, North Carolina, the technology corridor
there in Raleigh connecting to the largest city in the Carolinas,
Charlotte. Again, it is a State-sponsored line. It is going to give
North Carolina the ability to work with Amtrak, to have power when they
make those investments to upgrade those lines.
Again, there are 21 corridors in 19 States. This is really important.
Some of our fast-growing Southern States, look at this bill. This bill
empowers the States. It has the reforms. I believe that all Members
should be able to support this as real reform and improving Amtrak.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The gentleman from Massachusetts
has 15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14
minutes remaining.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, let me thank
Chairman Shuster and the ranking member for their leadership and hard
work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.
I know that both sides had other provisions that they wanted included
in the bill. I personally wanted to include much more funding for
Amtrak, but in the tradition of our committee, we compromised and
developed a bill that ensures that our Nation's passenger rail system
has an opportunity to thrive.
This legislation maintains long-distance routes, protects hardworking
Amtrak employees, invests in the Northeast corridor, promotes minority
opportunities in rail, improves access to the RRIF loan program, and
takes another step forward in restoring passenger rail service to the
Gulf States.
As more and more Americans turn to rail as their preferred mode of
transportation, Amtrak is building the infrastructure and organization
to meet this demand. Amtrak carried a record number of 31.6 million
passengers in 2013. Their ridership has been growing across the system
for over a decade, with last year's ridership numbers being the largest
in history. Currently, they serve more than 500 destinations in 46
States and provide the only public transportation option for millions
of rural Americans.
Let me repeat that. Currently, they serve more than 500 destinations
in 46 States, and provide the only public transportation options for
millions of rural Americans.
Amtrak has increased revenue, reduced debt, implemented new passenger
service, improved their infrastructure, and purchased train sets that
are being built in America with 100 percent American-made parts.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAPUANO. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Amtrak reduces congestion, improves our energy
independence, and it plays a vital role in emergency preparedness and
recovery, as it did in the 9/11 bombings and Hurricane Katrina.
There is no perfect bill, but this is a perfect start, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Let's keep
Amtrak moving forward.
As I close, I just want to be clear: I support this bill. I ask all
of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Amtrak and move it forward.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the hard work that went into this important legislation
to ensure passenger rail service remains a viable option for travelers
across the country. In particular, as a pet lover, I am very happy to
see the language based on Chairman Denham's Pets on Trains legislation,
which I am cosponsor of. But I do have concerns that the bill we are
going to pass today doesn't set us on a course for building out
services to parts of the country that do not now have access to
passenger rail.
I represent Las Vegas, which welcomes more than 42 million people
from around the world to our world-class resorts, casinos, restaurants,
shopping, shows, et cetera. More and more of these visitors are coming
from Asia and Europe, where rail services are accessible and efficient.

{time} 1315

Unfortunately, the last Amtrak train to service Las Vegas departed
from the station on Glitter Gulch behind the Union Plaza in May of
1977.
Over the past 18 years, Las Vegas has continued its transformation
into the premier international tourist destination. Since the trains
stopped running, nearly a million more residents now call southern
Nevada home and 10 million more people come to Las Vegas for work and
play every year. This growth has put an enormous strain on our highways
and airports.
While I will be supporting this legislation, I do hope, as the body
advances further policies regarding passenger rail, we recognize the
need to build out rail services to communities like Las Vegas, not just
maintain the current system.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman doesn't have
any additional speakers, so I am prepared to close if he is ready to
close.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I echo everything that has been said. This
bill is pretty good, and it deserves our support. I am looking forward
to voting ``yes'' on this bill, and I am looking forward to getting it
passed through the Senate.
I actually say, considering what is going on in Congress here now,
this bill is my idea of a perfect situation. We didn't get everything
we wanted; they didn't get everything some of their Members wanted, yet
we are moving forward.
I congratulate the chairman and my ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for
being, in my opinion, the perfect type of Member of Congress: someone
who knows what they want but also knows how to compromise to move a
bill forward.
I am honored to be here today. I am honored to be working with such
fine people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. I don't think I will use it all. I am sure any of my
colleagues watching on TV are hoping I don't use it all also.
I want to close by just emphasizing again that this is truly a reform
bill that was crafted in a bipartisan basis. There is significant
reforms in here. It is going to make Amtrak more transparent. They are
going to force these metrics to measure like businesses do. They
haven't done that for the 40 years or so they have been in existence.
We have significant environmental streamlining, which not only
benefits Amtrak projects, but it is going to benefit the freight rails,
as they spend 18 percent of their revenues--almost $30 billion--that
they will invest across the class I railroads to go into their
infrastructure, which is incredibly important to movement of freight in
this country and having an efficient economy.
The bill also breaks out Amtrak into business lines, leaving the
profits on the Northeast corridor--and the other profits on other
corridors--but that is the biggest corridor, that is the one

[[Page H1585]]

that makes money, leaving it there to invest in that corridor.
By the way, as they reinvest those dollars, we can learn from what is
happening on the Northeast corridor because there are corridors around
this country that need to be developed because of the growing
population. That is why we empower the States on those 21 State-
sponsored lines.
On those 21 lines, States are going to have more power, more say--
equal say, I will say--with Amtrak. As Texas develops their corridors
down there, they are going to work with Amtrak--the North Carolina
lines; the Virginia lines that run to Washington, D.C., and other
places in Virginia; and California. Those State-sponsored lines are
going to have the ability to make those investments with Amtrak to
improve those lines.
I just want to talk again about the Keystone line because I think
that is really a prime example of what can happen on a corridor when
the State and Amtrak work together. Ridership is up almost 80 percent
over the past several years. They are going to be projecting a profit
in the first quarter this year, which is the first time in history.
When you do those kind of reforms, when you have transparency, when
you give States power, when you streamline the environmental review
process, those are the kind of good things that can happen.
Again, this is not perfect. Amtrak is not perfect, but we are moving
the ball in the right direction. We are moving the ball so that we can
see a better Amtrak and improved passenger rail.
I truly believe that you need passenger rail in this country,
especially in some of these corridors--10, 11 corridors around this
Nation where populations are growing. The population of the United
States is growing, and we see the prime example of the Northeast
corridor, 18 percent of the population on 3 percent of the land mass.
They have to have passenger rail.
There are about 11 million riders, almost 12 million riders on
Amtrak, but there are 250 million people that connect to Amtrak through
the transit systems in the Northeast corridor. It is an incredible link
that needs to be maintained, needs to be improved; and this bill, I
believe, does that.
I would encourage all my Members to come to the floor today and vote
in favor of this truly reform bill that will make Amtrak better and
drive down what the Federal Government puts into that system. I think
this bill does that. Again, I encourage the support of H.R. 749.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chair, nearly two centuries ago we began
to utilize rail for moving freight and people around our great nation.
This technological leap helped to greatly expand our economy and bring
together our vast continental nation.
Today, passenger rail still plays a key role in connecting population
centers and moving people to their places of work. It is vital that we
continue to find new ways to improve and modernize our infrastructure
to meet the demands of the modern world.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous
Materials of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee I am
proud to support this important legislation because it will help to
accomplish this important goal.
The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act will assist in advancing
large infrastructure projects through new partnerships with the private
sector and states including giving states a greater role in managing
routes.
It will more quickly advance those projects through streamlining the
environmental processes, and it increases transparency for Amtrak which
will require it to operate in a more businesslike manner
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation to give our nation a stronger and more vital passenger rail
system.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Passenger Rail
Reform and Investment Act. This is good, bipartisan legislation that
will strengthen our nation's passenger rail system and create American
jobs. My district in New Jersey sits along the Northeast Corridor, the
busiest corridor in the Nation. In 2014, the Northeast Corridor saw a
ridership of 11.6 million; its highest ridership year on record.
As ridership continues to grow, the necessity to invest in rail
infrastructure becomes more vital. I am pleased that this bill will
provide 1.9 billion dollars for capital improvements along the
Northeast Corridor. This money will assist states with the opportunity
to grow their passenger rail services, which in turn will help provide
more affordable transportation options.
I am a strong supporter of the Buy America provisions that will
ensure that American rail is built with American iron and steel. In
addition to providing the capital and resources needed to bring the
American rail system into the 21st Century, this legislation will help
meet the growing demand for more cost-efficient and environmentally
friendly means of transportation. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-9. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 749

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Passenger
Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Authorization for Amtrak.
Sec. 102. Authorization for Amtrak Office of the Inspector
General.
Sec. 103. National infrastructure investments.
Sec. 104. Northeast Corridor.

TITLE II--AMTRAK REFORM

Sec. 201. Amtrak planning and grant process.
Sec. 202. 5-Year capital and operating plan.
Sec. 203. State-supported routes.
Sec. 204. Route and service planning decisions.
Sec. 205. Competition.
Sec. 206. Food and beverage reform.
Sec. 207. Right of way leveraging.
Sec. 208. Station development.
Sec. 209. Amtrak debt.
Sec. 210. Amtrak pilot program for passengers transporting
domesticated cats and dogs.
Sec. 211. Amtrak boarding procedures.

TITLE III--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL POLICY

Sec. 301. Federal-State partnership for Northeast Corridor
development and improvement.
Sec. 302. RRIF improvements.
Sec. 303. NEC fast forward.
Sec. 304. Large capital project requirements.
Sec. 305. Small business participation study.
Sec. 306. Gulf Coast rail service working group.
Sec. 307. Miscellaneous.

TITLE IV--PROJECT DELIVERY

Sec. 401. Project delivery rulemaking.
Sec. 402. Historic preservation of railroads.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Definition.
Sec. 502. Title 49 definitions.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION FOR AMTRAK.

(a) Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the use of
Amtrak for deposit into the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Fund account established under section 24319(a)(1) of title
49, United States Code (as added by section 201 of this Act),
the following amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2016, $439,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2017, $464,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2018, $480,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2019, $498,000,000.
(b) National Network.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for the use of Amtrak for
deposit into the National Network account established under
section 24319(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code (as added
by section 201 of this Act), the following amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2016, $973,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2017, $974,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2018, $985,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2019, $997,000,000.
(c) Project Management Oversight.--The Secretary may
withhold up to $2,000,000 of the amount appropriated pursuant
to subsection (a), and up to $2,000,000 of the amount
appropriated pursuant to subsection (b), for the costs of
management oversight of Amtrak.

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION FOR AMTRAK OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
for the Office of the Inspector General of Amtrak the
following amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2016, $23,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2017, $24,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2018, $24,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2019, $25,000,000.

SEC. 103. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary for capital grants

[[Page H1586]]

under chapter 244 of title 49, United States Code, and
section 20154 of title 49, United States Code, the following
amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2016, $300,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2017, $300,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2018, $300,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2019, $300,000,000.
(b) Federal-State Partnership for Northeast Corridor
Development and Improvement.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a), 50 percent for each fiscal
year shall be available for carrying out section 24407 of
title 49, United States Code, as added by section 301 of this
Act.
(c) Project Management Oversight.--The Secretary may
withhold up to \1/2\ of 1 percent of amounts appropriated
pursuant to chapter 244 of title 49, United States Code, for
the costs of project management oversight of capital projects
carried out pursuant to such chapter.

SEC. 104. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR.

For purposes of this title, the term ``Northeast Corridor''
means the Northeast Corridor main line between Boston,
Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, and facilities
and services used to operate and maintain that line.

TITLE II--AMTRAK REFORM

SEC. 201. AMTRAK PLANNING AND GRANT PROCESS.

(a) Requirements and Procedures.--
(1) Amendment.--Chapter 243 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
sections:

``Sec. 24317. Costs and revenues

``(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of
2015, Amtrak shall establish and maintain internal controls
to ensure Amtrak's costs and revenues are allocated to either
the Northeast Corridor or the National Network, including
proportional shares of common and fixed costs.
``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this chapter, the term
`Northeast Corridor' means the Northeast Corridor main line
between Boston, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia,
and facilities and services used to operate and maintain that
line.

``Sec. 24318. Grant process

``(a) Procedures for Grant Requests.--Not later than 30
days after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform
and Investment Act of 2015, the Secretary of Transportation
shall establish and transmit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate substantive and
procedural requirements, including schedules, for grant
requests under this section.
``(b) Grant Requests.--Amtrak shall transmit grant requests
for Federal funds to be appropriated to the Secretary for the
use of Amtrak to--
``(1) the Secretary; and
``(2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
``(c) Contents.--A grant request under subsection (b)
shall--
``(1) provide a detailed financial analysis for the
upcoming fiscal year for the Northeast Corridor, State-
supported routes, and long-distance routes, including
projections for the items listed in 24320(c)(1), as
applicable, in comparison to prior fiscal year projections;
``(2) include a description of the work to be funded, along
with cost estimates and an estimated timetable for completion
of the projects covered by the request;
``(3) include an assessment of the continuing financial
stability of Amtrak;
``(4) be displayed on Amtrak's website within a reasonable
timeframe following its submission to the entities described
in subsection (b); and
``(5) be in similar format and substance to those submitted
by executive agencies of the Federal Government.
``(d) Review and Approval.--
``(1) 30-day approval process.--The Secretary shall
complete the review of a grant request and approve or
disapprove the request not later than 30 days after the date
on which Amtrak submits the grant request. If the Secretary
disapproves the request or determines that the request is
incomplete or deficient, the Secretary shall include the
reason for disapproval or the incomplete items or
deficiencies in a notice to Amtrak.
``(2) 15-day modification period.--Not later than 15 days
after receiving notification from the Secretary under
paragraph (1), Amtrak shall submit a modified request for the
Secretary's review.
``(3) Revised requests.--Not later than 15 days after
receiving a modified request from Amtrak, the Secretary shall
either approve the modified request, or, if the Secretary
finds that the request is still incomplete or deficient, the
Secretary shall identify in writing to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate the remaining
deficiencies and recommend a process for resolving the
outstanding portions of the request.
``(e) Payment to Amtrak.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in
each fiscal year for which amounts are authorized to be
appropriated, amounts appropriated shall be paid to Amtrak as
follows:
``(A) 50 percent on October 1.
``(B) 25 percent on January 1.
``(C) 25 percent on April 1.
``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may make a payment to
Amtrak of appropriated funds more frequently than once every
90 days if Amtrak, for good cause, requests more frequent
payment before a 90-day period ends.
``(f) Availability of Amounts and Early Appropriations.--
Amounts appropriated to the Secretary for the use of Amtrak
shall remain available until expended. Amounts for capital
acquisitions and improvements may be appropriated for a
fiscal year before the fiscal year in which the amounts will
be obligated.
``(g) Limitations on Use.--Amounts appropriated to the
Secretary for the use of Amtrak may not be used to subsidize
operating losses of commuter rail passenger or rail freight
transportation.

``Sec. 24319. Accounts

``(a) Establishment of Accounts.--Amtrak shall establish--
``(1) a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund account; and
``(2) a National Network account.
``(b) Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund Account.--
``(1) Deposits.--Amtrak shall deposit in the Northeast
Corridor Improvement Fund account established under
subsection (a)(1)--
``(A) grant funds appropriated for the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Fund pursuant to section 101(a) of the Passenger
Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 or any subsequent Act;
``(B) compensation received from commuter rail passenger
transportation on the Northeast Corridor provided to Amtrak
pursuant to section 24905(c); and
``(C) any operating surplus of the Northeast Corridor, as
allocated pursuant to section 24317.
``(2) Use of northeast corridor improvement fund account.--
Except as provided in subsection (d), amounts deposited in
the Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund account shall be made
available for the use of Amtrak for--
``(A) capital projects described in section 24401(2) (A) or
(B) to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state-of-good-
repair, including projects described in section
24911(a)(2)(E)(i)(I);
``(B) capital projects intended to increase corridor
capacity, improve service reliability, and reduce travel time
for rail users on the Northeast Corridor, including projects
described in subclauses (II) and (III) of section
24911(a)(2)(E)(i), consistent with the planning process
established under section 24911; and
``(C) retirement of principal and payment of interest on
loans for capital equipment, or capital leases, attributable
to the Northeast Corridor.
``(c) National Network Account.--
``(1) Deposits.--Amtrak shall deposit in the account
established under subsection (a)(2)--
``(A) grant funds appropriated for the National Network
pursuant to section 101(b) of the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act of 2015, or any subsequent Act;
``(B) compensation received from States provided to Amtrak
pursuant to section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 24101 note); and
``(C) any operating surplus from the National Network, as
allocated pursuant to section 24317.
``(2) Use of national network account.--Except as provided
in subsection (d), amounts deposited in the National Network
account shall be made available for the use of Amtrak for
capital expenses and operating costs of the National Network
and retirement of principal and payment of interest on loans
for capital equipment, or capital leases, attributable to the
National Network.
``(d) Transfer Authority.--
``(1) Authority.--Amtrak may transfer any funds
appropriated pursuant to the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act of 2015 or any other Act, or any surplus
generated by operations, between the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Fund and National Network accounts upon the
expiration of 60 days after Amtrak has notified the Amtrak
Board of Directors of such transfer.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the Amtrak
Board of Directors receives notification from Amtrak under
paragraph (1), the Board shall transmit a report to the
Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, that includes--
``(A) the amount of the transfer; and
``(B) a detailed explanation of the reason for the
transfer, including effects on Amtrak services if no transfer
were made.
``(e) Letters of Intent.--
``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall issue a letter of
intent to Amtrak announcing an intention to obligate, for a
major capital project described in subclauses (II) and (III)
of section 24911(a)(2)(E)(i), an amount from future available
budget authority specified in law that is not more than the
amount stipulated as the financial participation of the
Secretary in the project.
``(2) Notice to congress.--At least 30 days before issuing
a letter under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall notify in
writing the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, of the proposed letter. The Secretary shall include
with the notification a copy of the proposed letter, the
criteria used for selecting the project for a grant award,
and a description of how the project meets criteria of this
section.
``(3) Contingent nature of obligation or commitment.--An
obligation or administrative commitment may be made only when
amounts are appropriated. The letter of intent shall state

[[Page H1587]]

that the contingent commitment is not an obligation of the
Federal Government, and is subject to the availability of
appropriations under Federal law and to Federal laws in force
or enacted after the date of the contingent commitment.
``(f) Rolling Stock Purchases.--Prior to entering into
contracts in excess of $100,000,000 for rolling stock
procurements, Amtrak shall submit a business case analysis to
the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, on the utility of such
purchase. This analysis shall--
``(1) include a cost and benefit comparison that describes
the total lifecycle costs and the anticipated benefits
related to revenue, operational efficiency, reliability, and
other factors;
``(2) set forth the total payments by fiscal year;
``(3) identify the specific source and amounts of funding
for each payment, including Federal funds, State funds,
Amtrak profits, Federal, State, or private loans or loan
guarantees, and other funding;
``(4) include whether any payment under the contract will
increase Amtrak's grant request, as required under section
24318, in that particular fiscal year; and
``(5) describe how Amtrak will adjust the procurement if
future funding is not available.''.
(2) Table of sections amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 243 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new items:

``24317. Costs and revenues.
``24318. Grant process.
``24319. Accounts.''.
(b) Northeast Corridor Planning.--
(1) Amendment.--Chapter 249 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 24911. Northeast Corridor planning

``(a) Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan.--
``(1) Requirement.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act
of 2015, and annually thereafter, the Northeast Corridor
Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission established
under section 24905 (referred to in this section as the
`Commission') shall develop a capital investment plan for the
Northeast Corridor main line between Boston, Massachusetts,
and the District of Columbia, and the Northeast Corridor
branch lines connecting to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
Springfield, Massachusetts, and Spuyten Duyvil, New York, and
facilities and services used to operate and maintain those
lines.
``(2) Contents.--Each such plan shall--
``(A) be developed to establish a coordinated approach to
capital spending on the Northeast Corridor;
``(B) cover a period of 5 fiscal years, beginning with the
first fiscal year after the date of the plan;
``(C) notwithstanding section 24902(b), prioritize projects
and investments along the Northeast Corridor based on--
``(i) the anticipated benefits and costs of projects;
``(ii) the anticipated Federal and non-Federal funding
available; and
``(iii) the information contained in the Northeast Corridor
asset management plans required under subsection (b), once
available;
``(D) ensure coordination and optimization across the
entire Northeast Corridor and among the various owners and
users;
``(E) include a financial plan for the investment period
that--
``(i) categorizes each capital project as being primarily
associated with--

``(I) normalized capital replacement;
``(II) replacement, rehabilitation, or repair of Northeast
Corridor infrastructure assets, including tunnels, bridges,
stations, and other assets; or
``(III) improvement of train performance on the Northeast
Corridor, including reduced trip times, increased train
frequencies, higher operating speeds, and other improvements;

``(ii) identifies the anticipated funding source and
financing method for each capital project described in
subclauses (II) and (III) of clause (i);
``(iii) describes the anticipated outcomes of each project,
including--

``(I) an assessment of the potential effect on passenger
accessibility, operations, safety, reliability, and
resiliency, and on the ability of infrastructure owners and
operators to meet regulatory requirements should the project
not be funded; and
``(II) an assessment of the benefits and costs;

``(iv) identifies the extent to which the capital assets
are or will be jointly used by intercity passenger rail
service and other users, and the proportionate share of that
joint usage; and
``(v) for projects that are expected to be fully or
partially funded through Federal financial assistance,
identifies the most appropriate public agency or entity to
receive those funds and implement each capital project.
``(3) Additional contents.--Any plan developed under
paragraph (1) after the publication by the Secretary of
Transportation of the Northeast Corridor service development
plan shall also--
``(A) be developed to identify, prioritize, and phase the
implementation of projects necessary to achieve the goals and
findings contained in such Northeast Corridor service
development plan;
``(B) allow for flexibility to change prioritization and
programs based upon the availability of Federal and non-
Federal funding;
``(C) inform the Secretary in developing recommendations
for Congress on Federal funding needs for the Northeast
Corridor and any corresponding Federal investments in the
respective capital programs for Northeast Corridor
infrastructure owners and users; and
``(D) capture the network-level anticipated outcomes
associated with plan implementation, including the
anticipated effect on passenger accessibility, operations,
safety, reliability, and resiliency.
``(b) Northeast Corridor Asset Management Plans.--
``(1) Contents.--Amtrak, and States and public
transportation entities that own infrastructure that supports
or provides for intercity rail passenger transportation on
the Northeast Corridor, shall develop and update as necessary
Northeast Corridor asset management plans for the Northeast
Corridor main line between Boston, Massachusetts, and the
District of Columbia, and the Northeast Corridor branch lines
connecting to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Springfield,
Massachusetts, and Spuyten Duyvil, New York, and facilities
and services used to operate and maintain those lines, that--
``(A) are consistent with the Federal Transit
Administration process, as authorized under section 5326,
when implemented; and
``(B) include, at a minimum--
``(i) an inventory of all capital assets owned by the
developer of the plan;
``(ii) an assessment of the condition of each of those
assets;
``(iii) a description of how the condition of each asset
has changed since the previous iteration of the plan; and
``(iv) a description of the necessary resources and
processes for bringing or maintaining those assets in a
state-of-good repair, including decision support tools and
investment prioritization methodologies.
``(2) Transmittal to commission.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act of 2015, each entity described in paragraph
(1) shall transmit to the Commission a plan developed under
paragraph (1). Any updates to such plan shall also be
transmitted to the Commission.
``(c) Northeast Corridor Service Development Plan
Updates.--The Commission shall, at least once every 10 years,
update the Northeast Corridor service development plan.''.
(2) Table of sections amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 249 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:

``24911. Northeast Corridor planning.''.
(c) Repeals.--The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Sections 206 and 211 of the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008, and the items relating thereto
in the table of contents of such Act.
(2) Section 24104 of title 49, United States Code, and the
item relating thereto in the table of sections for chapter
241 of such title.

SEC. 202. 5-YEAR CAPITAL AND OPERATING PLAN.

(a) Amendment.--Chapter 243 of title 49, United States
Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 24320. 5-Year capital and operating plan

``(a) Plan.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of an Act appropriating funds pursuant to section
101 of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015,
or any subsequent authorization of appropriations for the
same purposes, the Amtrak Board of Directors shall prepare
and transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate a 5-year capital and operating
plan for the Northeast Corridor and National Network.
``(b) Consultation.--Each such plan shall be prepared in
consultation with--
``(1) the Federal Railroad Administration;
``(2) the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations
Advisory Commission, with respect to the Northeast Corridor;
and
``(3) the requisite States, with respect to the National
Network.
``(c) Contents.--A plan prepared under this section shall--
``(1) for each of the Northeast Corridor and the National
Network, include--
``(A) projected revenues and expenditures for the Northeast
Corridor, State-supported routes, long-distance routes, and
corporate development, including Federal and non-Federal
funding sources;
``(B) projected ridership levels for the Northeast
Corridor, State-supported routes, and long-distance routes;
``(C) projected capital and operational funding
requirements necessary to maintain passenger service in order
to accommodate predicted ridership levels and predicted
sources of Federal and non-Federal funding;
``(D) projected capital and operating requirements,
ridership, revenue, and expenditures for new passenger
service operations or service expansions;
``(E) an assessment of the continuing financial stability
of Amtrak, as indicated by factors including anticipated
Federal funding of capital and operating costs, Amtrak's
ability to efficiently recruit, retain, and manage its
workforce, and Amtrak's ability to effectively provide
passenger rail service;
``(F) estimates of long-term and short-term debt and
associated principal and interest payments (both current and
anticipated);
``(G) annual cash flow forecasts;
``(H) a statement describing methods of estimation and
significant assumptions;
``(I) specific measures that demonstrate measurable
improvement year over year in the financial results of
Amtrak's operations;

[[Page H1588]]

``(J) prior fiscal year and projected--
``(i) operating ratio, cash operating loss, and cash
operating loss per passenger on a route, business line, and
corporate basis;
``(ii) specific costs and savings estimates resulting from
reform initiatives;
``(iii) productivity statistics on a route, business line,
and corporate basis; and
``(iv) equipment reliability statistics;
``(K) capital and operating expenditures for anticipated
security needs; and
``(L) a prioritization of capital expenditures by business
line; and
``(2) reflect the Northeast Corridor planning, as
applicable, and grant processes established under sections
24911 and 24318.
``(d) Conformance to Authorized Funding Levels.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
financial projection for a fiscal year that is included in a
plan prepared under this section shall be based on the amount
of dedicated funding for such fiscal year.
``(2) Absence of appropriation.--In the absence of an
appropriation of funds for such fiscal year, the projection
shall be based on the amount of funds authorized by law to be
appropriated for that fiscal year, plus other dedicated
funding.
``(3) Dedicated funding defined.--In this subsection, the
term `dedicated funding' means any amounts appropriated for a
fiscal year and any other funding sources, including revenues
and other ancillary funding streams, for the Northeast
Corridor or the National Network.
``(e) Standards To Promote Financial Stability.--In
preparing a plan under this section, the Board shall apply
sound budgetary practices, including reducing costs and other
expenditures, improving productivity, increasing revenues, or
combinations of such practices.
``(f) Updates.--Amtrak shall provide monthly reports for
the current fiscal year in electronic format to the Secretary
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate regarding the items described in subsection (c)(1),
which shall include a description of the work completed to
date, any differences from projections, and the reasons for
such differences.''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for
such chapter 243 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``24320. 5-Year capital and operating plan.''.
(c) Repeal.--Section 204 of the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24101 note), and the
item relating thereto in the table of contents of such Act,
are repealed.

SEC. 203. STATE-SUPPORTED ROUTES.

(a) Amendment.--Chapter 247 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 24712. State-supported routes

``(a) State-Supported Route Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act
of 2015, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish a
State-Supported Route Advisory Committee to promote mutual
cooperation and planning pertaining to the rail operations
and related activities of trains operated on State-supported
routes and to further implement section 209 of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24101
note).
``(2) Membership.--The Committee shall consist of
representatives of--
``(A) Amtrak;
``(B) the Department of Transportation, including the
Federal Railroad Administration; and
``(C) 7 States that sponsor State-supported routes,
selected by the Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration on the basis of appropriate expertise and
geographic balance, and in a manner that ensures that all
appropriate States are represented periodically on the
Committee.
``(3) Distribution of membership.--The membership belonging
to any of the groups described in each individual
subparagraph of paragraph (2) shall not constitute a majority
of the Committee's memberships.
``(4) Meetings; rules and procedures.--The Committee shall
establish a schedule and location for convening meetings, but
shall meet no less than 2 times every fiscal year. The
Committee shall develop rules and procedures to govern the
Committee's proceedings.
``(b) Cost, Service, and Ridership Forecasts.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than January 31, 2016, and
annually thereafter, Amtrak shall transmit to each State that
sponsors a State-supported route, and to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate--
``(A) a final statement of costs, revenues, ridership, and
other information determined appropriate by the Committee
established under subsection (a), pertaining to each such
route for the prior fiscal year; and
``(B) a cost, service, and ridership forecast for each such
route for the upcoming fiscal year, developed pursuant to the
methodology established under section 209 of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24101
note).
``(2) Exception.--The Committee may establish a different
deadline than is required under paragraph (1) for submission
of final financial statements and cost, service, and
ridership forecasts.
``(3) Quarterly updates.--Beginning in 2016, and each year
thereafter, Amtrak shall transmit to each State that sponsors
a State-supported route quarterly updates of the cost,
service, and ridership forecast described in paragraph (1)(B)
to enable States to pace costs against State budgets, plan
effectively, and address unexpected changes in costs in a
timely manner, on the following dates:
``(A) April 30, for the period encompassing January through
March of such year.
``(B) July 31, for the period encompassing April through
June of such year.
``(C) October 31, for the period encompassing July through
September of such year.
``(c) Invoices.--Not later than February 15, 2016, and
monthly thereafter, Amtrak shall provide to each State that
sponsors a State-supported route a monthly invoice of the
cost of operating such route, including fixed costs and
third-party costs.
``(d) Dispute Resolution.--
``(1) Request for expedited resolution.--If a dispute
arises with respect to a forecast developed under subsection
(b), an invoice developed under subsection (c), or the terms
of a contract for operation of a State-supported route
negotiated between Amtrak and a State that sponsors the
route, either Amtrak or the State may request that the
Surface Transportation Board conduct expedited dispute
resolution under this subsection.
``(2) Procedures.--The Surface Transportation Board shall
establish procedures for expedited resolution of disputes
brought before it under this subsection.
``(3) Binding effect.--The decision of the Surface
Transportation Board under this subsection shall be binding
on the parties to the dispute.
``(e) FRA Assistance.--The Federal Railroad Administration
may provide assistance to the parties in the course of
negotiations for a contract for operation of a State-
supported route.
``(f) Performance Metrics.--In negotiating a contract for
operation of a State-supported route, Amtrak and the State or
States that sponsor the route shall consider including
provisions that provide penalties and incentives for
performance based on metrics that take into account only
those factors within the control of Amtrak or the State or
States.
``(g) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
`State' means each of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia.''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for
such chapter 247 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``24712. State-supported routes.''.

SEC. 204. ROUTE AND SERVICE PLANNING DECISIONS.

Section 208 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24101 note) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 208. METHODOLOGIES FOR AMTRAK ROUTE AND SERVICE
PLANNING DECISIONS.

``(a) Methodology Development.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act of 2015, as a condition of receiving a grant
under section 101 of such Act, Amtrak shall obtain the
services of an independent entity to develop and recommend
objective methodologies for Amtrak to use in determining what
intercity rail passenger transportation routes and services
it should provide, including the establishment of new routes,
the elimination of existing routes, and the contraction or
expansion of services or frequencies over such routes.
``(b) Considerations.--Amtrak shall require the entity, in
developing the methodologies described in subsection (a), to
consider--
``(1) the current and expected performance and service
quality of intercity rail passenger transportation
operations, including cost recovery, on-time performance,
ridership, on-board services, stations, facilities,
equipment, and other services;
``(2) connectivity of a route with other routes;
``(3) the transportation needs of communities and
populations that are not well served by intercity rail
passenger transportation service or by other forms of
intercity transportation;
``(4) the methodologies of Amtrak and major intercity rail
passenger transportation service providers in other countries
for determining intercity passenger rail routes and services;
``(5) the views of States, rail carriers that own
infrastructure over which Amtrak operates, Amtrak employee
representatives, and other interested parties; and
``(6) the funding levels that will be available under
authorization levels that have been enacted into law.
``(c) Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment
Act of 2015, Amtrak shall transmit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate the recommendations developed by
the entity pursuant to subsection (a).
``(d) Consideration of Recommendations.--Not later than 90
days after transmitting the recommendations pursuant to
subsection (c), the Amtrak Board of Directors shall consider
the adoption of the recommendations and transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report containing an
explanation of any reasons for adopting or not adopting the
recommendations.''.

SEC. 205. COMPETITION.

(a) Amendment.--Section 24711 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 24711. Alternate passenger rail service pilot program

``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of
2015, the Federal

[[Page H1589]]

Railroad Administration shall complete a rulemaking
proceeding to develop a pilot program that--
``(1) permits a rail carrier or rail carriers that own
infrastructure over which Amtrak operates a passenger rail
service route described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of
section 24102(7) or in section 24702(a) to petition the
Federal Railroad Administration to be considered as a
passenger rail service provider over that route in lieu of
Amtrak for an operations period of 5 years;
``(2) requires the Federal Railroad Administration to
notify Amtrak within 30 days after receiving a petition under
paragraph (1) and establish a deadline by which both the
petitioner and Amtrak would be required to submit a bid to
provide passenger rail service over the route to which the
petition relates;
``(3) requires that each bid describe how the bidder would
operate the route, what Amtrak passenger equipment would be
needed, if any, and what sources of non-Federal funding the
bidder would use, including any State subsidy, among other
things;
``(4) requires the Federal Railroad Administration to
execute a contract within a specified, limited time after the
deadline established under paragraph (2) and award to the
winning bidder--
``(A) the right and obligation to provide passenger rail
service over that route subject to such performance standards
as the Federal Railroad Administration may require; and
``(B) an operating subsidy--
``(i) for the first year at a level not in excess of 90
percent of the level in effect for that specific route during
the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the
petition was received, adjusted for inflation; and
``(ii) for any subsequent years at the level calculated
under clause (i), adjusted for inflation; and
``(5) requires that each bid contain a staffing plan
describing the number of employees needed to operate the
service, the job assignments and requirements, and the terms
of work for prospective and current employees of the bidder
for the service outlined in the bid, and that such staffing
plan be made available by the winning bidder to the public
after the bid award.
``(b) Route Limitations.--The Federal Railroad
Administration may not make the program available with
respect to more than 2 Amtrak intercity passenger rail
routes.
``(c) Performance Standards; Access to Facilities;
Employees.--If the Federal Railroad Administration awards the
right and obligation to provide passenger rail service over a
route under this section to a rail carrier or rail carriers--
``(1) it shall execute a contract with the rail carrier or
rail carriers for rail passenger operations on that route
that conditions the operating and subsidy rights on--
``(A) the service provider continuing to provide passenger
rail service on the route that is no less frequent, nor over
a shorter distance, than Amtrak provided on that route before
the award; and
``(B) the service provider's compliance with the standards
established under subsection (a)(4)(A), and such additional
performance standards as the Administration may establish;
``(2) it shall, if the award is made to a rail carrier
other than Amtrak, require Amtrak to provide access to its
reservation system, stations, and facilities directly related
to operations to any rail carrier or rail carriers awarded a
contract under this section, in accordance with subsection
(d), necessary to carry out the purposes of this section;
``(3) an employee of any person used by such rail carrier
or rail carriers in the operation of a route under this
section shall be considered an employee of that carrier or
carriers and subject to the applicable Federal laws and
regulations governing similar crafts or classes of employees
of Amtrak, including provisions under section 121 of the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (49 U.S.C. 4312
note) relating to employees that provide food and beverage
service; and
``(4) the winning bidder shall provide hiring preference to
qualified Amtrak employees displaced by the award of the bid,
consistent with the staffing plan submitted by the bidder,
and shall be subject to the grant conditions under section
24405 of this title.
``(d) Disputes.--If Amtrak and the rail carrier or rail
carriers awarded a route under this section cannot agree upon
terms to carry out subsection (c)(2), and the Surface
Transportation Board finds that access to Amtrak's facilities
or equipment, or the provision of services by Amtrak, is
necessary to carry out subsection (c)(2) and that the
operation of Amtrak's other services will not be impaired
thereby, the Surface Transportation Board shall, within 120
days after submission of the dispute, issue an order that the
facilities and equipment be made available, and that services
be provided, by Amtrak, and shall determine reasonable
compensation, liability, and other terms for use of the
facilities and equipment and provision of the services.
``(e) Cessation of Service.--If a rail carrier or rail
carriers awarded a route under this section cease to operate
the service or fail to fulfill their obligations under the
contract required under subsection (c), the Federal Railroad
Administration, in collaboration with the Surface
Transportation Board, shall take any necessary action
consistent with this title to enforce the contract and ensure
the continued provision of service, including the installment
of an interim service provider and rebidding the contract to
operate the service. The entity providing service shall
either be Amtrak or a rail carrier defined in subsection
(a)(1).
``(f) Adequate Resources.--Before taking any action allowed
under this section, the Secretary shall certify that the
Federal Railroad Administration has sufficient resources
appropriated under section 101(b) of Passenger Rail Reform
and Investment Act of 2015, or any subsequent appropriation,
for that purpose that are adequate to undertake the program
established under this section.
``(g) Budget Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation
may provide to a winning bidder selected under this section
appropriations authorized under sections 101(b) of the
Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, or any
subsequent appropriation for the same purposes, necessary to
cover the operating subsidy described in subsection
(a)(4)(B).''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the conclusion of
the pilot program established under the amendment made by
subsection (a), the Federal Railroad Administration shall
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report
on the results on the pilot program established under section
24711 of title 49 United States Code, and any recommendations
for further action.

SEC. 206. FOOD AND BEVERAGE REFORM.

(a) Amendment.--Chapter 243 of title 49, United States
Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 24321. Food and beverage reform

``(a) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of
2015, Amtrak shall develop and begin implementing a plan to
eliminate, within 5 years of such date of enactment, the
operating loss associated with providing food and beverage
service on board Amtrak trains.
``(b) Considerations.--In developing and implementing the
plan, Amtrak shall consider a combination of cost management
and revenue generation initiatives, including--
``(1) scheduling optimization;
``(2) on-board logistics;
``(3) product development and supply chain efficiency;
``(4) training, awards, and accountability;
``(5) technology enhancements and process improvements; and
``(6) ticket revenue allocation.
``(c) Savings Clause.--Amtrak shall ensure that no Amtrak
employee holding a position as of the date of enactment of
the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 is
involuntarily separated because of--
``(1) the development and implementation of the plan
required under subsection (a); or
``(2) any other action taken by Amtrak to implement this
section.
``(d) No Federal Funding for Operating Losses.--Beginning
on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of
the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, no
Federal funds may be used to cover any operating loss
associated with providing food and beverage service on a
route operated by Amtrak or an alternative passenger rail
service provider that operates a route in lieu of Amtrak
pursuant to section 24711.
``(e) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of
2015, and annually thereafter for 5 years, Amtrak shall
transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report containing the plan developed pursuant to
subsection (a) and a description of progress in the
implementation of the plan.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 243 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:

``24321. Food and beverage reform.''.

SEC. 207. RIGHT OF WAY LEVERAGING.

(a) Request for Proposals.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall issue a
Request for Proposals seeking private sector persons or
entities to utilize Amtrak-owned right-of-way for
telecommunications systems, energy distribution systems, and
other activities considered appropriate by Amtrak. The
Request for Proposals shall provide sufficient information on
Amtrak's right-of-way real estate assets to enable
respondents to propose an arrangement that will monetize such
assets through revenue sharing agreements with Amtrak.
(b) Consideration of Proposals.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Board of
Directors shall review and consider each proposal submitted
pursuant to subsection (a). Amtrak may enter into such
agreements as are necessary to implement any such proposal or
proposals.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the Request for
Proposals required by this section, including summary
information of any proposals submitted to Amtrak and any
proposals accepted by the Amtrak Board of Directors.

SEC. 208. STATION DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Report on Development Options.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall
transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report on options to enhance development around
Amtrak stations, including--
(1) strengthening multimodal connections, including
intercity buses;
(2) options for capturing development-related revenue
streams; and

[[Page H1590]]

(3) other opportunities to better leverage station assets.
(b) Proposals.--
(1) Request for proposals.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall issue a
Request for Proposals seeking persons or entities, where
appropriate, to carry out the options identified under
subsection (a).
(2) Consideration of proposals.--Not later than 24 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Board of
Directors shall review and consider each proposal submitted
pursuant to paragraph (1). Amtrak may enter into such
agreements as are necessary to implement any such proposal or
proposals.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the Request for
Proposals required by this section, including summary
information of any proposals submitted to Amtrak and any
proposals accepted by the Amtrak Board of Directors.

SEC. 209. AMTRAK DEBT.

Section 205 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24101 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, to the extent
provided in advance in appropriations Acts'' after ``Amtrak's
indebtedness'';
(2) by striking ``as of the date of enactment of this Act''
each place it appears;
(3) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence;
(4) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation'' and inserting ``To the extent
amounts are provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation'';
(5) in subsection (d), by inserting ``, to the extent
provided in advance in appropriations Acts'' after ``as
appropriate'';
(6) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``by section 102 of
this division''; and
(7) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``by section 102''
and inserting ``for Amtrak''.

SEC. 210. AMTRAK PILOT PROGRAM FOR PASSENGERS TRANSPORTING
DOMESTICATED CATS AND DOGS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall develop a pilot program
that allows passengers to transport domesticated cats or dogs
on certain trains operated by Amtrak.
(b) Pet Policy.--In developing the pilot program required
under subsection (a), Amtrak shall--
(1) in the case of a passenger train that is comprised of
more than 1 car, designate, where feasible, at least 1 car in
which a ticketed passenger may transport a domesticated cat
or dog in the same manner as carry-on baggage if--
(A) the cat or dog is contained in a pet kennel;
(B) the pet kennel is stowed in accordance with Amtrak size
requirements for carriage of carry-on baggage;
(C) the passenger is traveling on a train operating on a
route described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section
24102(7) of title 49, United States Code; and
(D) the passenger pays a fee described in paragraph (3);
(2) allow a ticketed passenger to transport a domesticated
cat or dog on a train in the same manner as cargo if--
(A) the cat or dog is contained in a pet kennel;
(B) the pet kennel is stowed in accordance with Amtrak
requirements for cargo stowage;
(C) the passenger is traveling on a train operating on a
route described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section
24102(7) of title 49, United States Code;
(D) the cargo area is temperature controlled in a manner
protective of cat and dog safety and health; and
(E) the passenger pays a fee described in paragraph (3);
and
(3) collect fees for each cat or dog transported by a
ticketed passenger in an amount that, in the aggregate and at
a minimum, covers the full costs of the pilot program.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the pilot program
required under subsection (a) is first implemented, Amtrak
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report containing an evaluation of the pilot
program.
(d) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--
(1) Service animals.--The pilot program required under
subsection (a) shall be separate from and in addition to the
policy governing Amtrak passengers traveling with service
animals. Nothing in this section may be interpreted to limit
or waive the rights of passengers to transport service
animals.
(2) Additional train cars.--Nothing in this section may be
interpreted to require Amtrak to add additional train cars or
modify existing train cars.
(3) Federal funds.--No Federal funds may be used to
implement the pilot program required under this section.

SEC. 211. AMTRAK BOARDING PROCEDURES.

(a) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General
shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report that--
(1) evaluates Amtrak's boarding procedures at its 10
stations through which the most people pass;
(2) compares Amtrak's boarding procedures to--
(A) commuter railroad boarding procedures at stations
shared with Amtrak;
(B) international intercity passenger rail boarding
procedures; and
(C) fixed guideway transit boarding procedures; and
(3) makes recommendations, as appropriate, to improve
Amtrak's boarding procedures, including recommendations
regarding the queuing of passengers and free-flow of all
station-users.
(b) Consideration of Recommendations.--Not later than 6
months after the release of the report required under
subsection (a), the Amtrak Board of Directors shall consider
each recommendation provided under subsection (a)(3) for
implementation across the Amtrak system.

TITLE III--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL POLICY

SEC. 301. FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT.

(a) Amendment.--Chapter 244 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 24407. Federal-State partnership for Northeast
Corridor rehabilitation and improvement

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
develop and implement a program for issuing grants to
applicants, on a competitive basis, for the purpose of
financing the capital projects included in the Northeast
Corridor Priority Project List developed under subsection
(c).
``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means a State
(including the District of Columbia), a group of States, an
Interstate Compact, or a public agency established by one or
more States and having responsibility for providing intercity
passenger or commuter rail service.
``(2) Major state-of-good-repair project.--The term `major
state-of-good-repair project' means a capital project
primarily intended to replace, rehabilitate or repair major
Northeast Corridor infrastructure assets utilized for
providing intercity rail passenger transportation, including
tunnels, bridges, stations, and other assets as determined by
the Secretary.
``(3) Improvement project.--The term `improvement project'
means a capital project primarily intended to improve
intercity passenger rail performance on the Northeast
Corridor, including reduced trip times, increased train
frequencies, higher operating speeds, and other improvements
as determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Northeast Corridor Priority Project List.--The
Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory
Commission, established under section 24905, shall develop
and approve a Northeast Corridor Priority Project List that
shall include--
``(1) a list of prioritized individual major state-of-good-
repair projects and improvement projects along the Northeast
Corridor that--
``(A) can be completed based on--
``(i) the funding authorized under section 103(b) of the
Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015;
``(ii) any subsequent applicable authorization in effect;
``(iii) in the absence of such an authorization, a 5-year
funding amount based on the most recent appropriation; or
``(iv) the requirements of subsection (d); and
``(B) are consistent with the Northeast Corridor capital
investment plan required under section 24911(a);
``(2) an identification of the applicant for each
individual project;
``(3) an identification of the sources of non-Federal
matching funds for each project; and
``(4) a description of the benefits each project will bring
to intercity rail passenger services.
``(d) Use of Funds.--The Federal grants authorized under
this section shall be for no more than 50 percent of the net
project cost of the project involved.
``(e) Applicability of Capital Grant Requirements.--Except
as specifically provided in this section, the use of any
amounts appropriated for grants under this section shall be
subject to the requirements of this chapter.
``(f) Match Requirements.--No grants may be obligated to an
applicant under this section unless the applicant has
transmitted to the Secretary of Transportation a binding
written commitment to provide all amounts necessary for the
purpose of matching Federal contributions as required by this
section.
``(g) Updates to List.--The Northeast Corridor
Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission shall
revise the NEC Priority Project List as necessary to
reflect--
``(1) any differences in the availability of Federal
funding from the levels assumed for purposes of subsection
(c)(1)(A) (i) and (ii);
``(2) any elimination or addition of projects; and
``(3) any reduction or increase in benefits to be derived
from a project.
``(h) Availability.--Amounts appropriated for carrying out
this section shall remain available until expended.
``(i) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall
supplant the requirement of applicants to compensate Amtrak
for the use of Amtrak facilities or services pursuant to
section 24905(c).
``(j) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`Northeast Corridor' means the Northeast Corridor main line
between Boston, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia,
and the Northeast Corridor branch lines connecting to
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Springfield, Massachusetts, and
Spuyten Duyvil, New York, and facilities and services used to
operate and maintain those lines.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 244 of title 49, United States

[[Page H1591]]

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``24407. Federal-State partnership for Northeast Corridor
rehabilitation and improvement.''.

SEC. 302. RRIF IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue regulations implementing the amendments made by this
section.
(b) Collateral.--Section 502(h)(2) of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C.
822(h)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2) The Secretary'' and inserting
``(2)(A) The Secretary'';
(2) by inserting ``The Secretary may subordinate rights of
the Secretary under any provision of title 49 or title 23 of
the United States Code, to the rights of the Secretary under
this section and section 503.'' after ``from another
source.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) The Secretary shall, for purposes of making a finding
under subsection (g)(4), accept the net present value on a
future stream of State or local subsidy income or dedicated
revenue as collateral offered to secure the loan.''.
(c) Office of Management and Budget Review.--Section 502(i)
of such Act (45 U.S.C. 822(i)) is amended by inserting ``In
order to enable compliance with such time limit, the Office
of Management and Budget shall take any actions required with
respect to the application within such 90-day period.'' after
``disapprove the application.''.
(d) RRIF Application.--Section 502(i) of such Act (45
U.S.C. 822(i)) is further amended--
(1) by striking ``Disapproval.--Not later than 90 days
after receiving'' and inserting ``Disapproval.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after an
application is determined pursuant to paragraph (2) to be'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Completion of application.--The Secretary shall
establish procedures for making a determination, not later
than 45 days after submission of an application under this
section, whether the application is complete. Such procedures
shall--
``(A) provide for a checklist of the required components of
a complete application;
``(B) require the Secretary to provide to the applicant a
description of the specific components of the application
that remain incomplete if an application is determined to be
incomplete; and
``(C) permit reapplication without prejudice for
applications determined to be incomplete.
``(3) Independent financial analyst.--The Secretary shall
assign an independent financial analyst within 45 days of
submittal of a complete application.''.
(e) Positive Train Control.--Section 502(c)(1) of such Act
(45 U.S.C. 822(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, including
projects for the installation of a positive train control (as
defined in section 20157(i) of title 49, United States Code)
system'' after ``public safety''.
(f) Report to Congress.--Section 502 of such Act (45 U.S.C.
822) is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(k) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment
Act of 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report on the program under this
section that provides information on loans approved and
disapproved by the Secretary during the previous year. Such
report shall not disclose the identity of direct loan or loan
guarantee recipients. The report shall describe--
``(1) the number of pre-application meetings with potential
applicants;
``(2) the number of applications received and determined
complete under subsection (i)(2), including the requested
loan amounts;
``(3) the dates of receipt of applications;
``(4) the dates applications were determined complete under
subsection (i)(2);
``(5) the number of applications determined incomplete
under subsection (i)(2);
``(6) the final decision dates for both approvals and
disapprovals of applications;
``(7) the number of applications withdrawn from
consideration; and
``(8) the annual loan portfolio asset quality.''.

SEC. 303. NEC FAST FORWARD.

(a) Northeast Corridor Authority.--Section 502(d) of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45
U.S.C. 822(d)) is amended by inserting ``40 percent shall be
available solely for projects described in subsection (l)(1),
and'' after ``Of this amount,''.
(b) Northeast Corridor Fast Forward Program.--Section 502
of such Act is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(l) Northeast Corridor Fast Forward.--
``(1) Purpose.--The Secretary, as part of the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program, shall
provide direct loans and loan guarantees to eligible entities
described in subsection (a) for capital projects to improve
the Northeast Corridor (as used in section 24911 of title 49,
United States Code).
``(2) Collateral.--Loans made or guaranteed under this
subsection shall require collateral equal to the loan amount
requested.
``(3) Investment grade rating.--A direct loan or loan
guarantee shall be made under this subsection only if a
rating agency has assigned an investment grade rating of BBB
minus, Baa3, bbb minus, BBB (low), (or equivalent) or higher
to the project obligation. For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `rating agency' means a credit rating agency
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a
nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as
that term is defined in section 3(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a))).
``(4) Inclusion in nec planning.--Loans and loan guarantees
made under this subsection shall be for projects that are
included in the most recent 5-year budget and business plan
prepared pursuant to section 24911(a) of title 49, United
States Code.
``(5) Refinancing.--Loans made or guaranteed under this
subsection shall not be used for the refinancing of
outstanding debt incurred.
``(6) Cohort of loans.--Subsection (f)(4) shall not apply
to loans made or guaranteed under this subsection.''.
(c) Report on Leveraging RRIF.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report identifying potential revenue sources,
projects, and service improvements that could be achieved by
the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b).
(d) Conditions of Funding.--
(1) Grants.--Section 24405 of title 49, United States Code,
is amended--
(A) by striking ``15 days'' and inserting ``30 days'' in
subsection (a)(4)(B); and
(B) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a report listing any waiver
issued under this section during the preceding year.''.
(2) RRIF.--Section 502(h)(3) of the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(h)(3)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) the requirements of section 24405(a) of title 49,
United States Code.''.

SEC. 304. LARGE CAPITAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.

Section 24402 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following subsection:
``(m) Large Capital Project Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--For a grant awarded under this chapter
for an amount in excess of $1,000,000,000, the following
conditions shall apply:
``(A) The Secretary of Transportation shall not obligate
any funding unless the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that it has committed and will
be able to fulfill the non-Federal share required for the
grant within the applicant's proposed project completion
timetable.
``(B) The Secretary shall not obligate any funding for work
activities that occur after the completion of final design
unless--
``(i) the applicant transmits to the Secretary a financial
plan that generally identifies the sources of the non-Federal
funding required for any subsequent segments or phases of the
corridor service development program covering the project for
which the grant is made;
``(ii) the grant will result in a useable segment, a
transportation facility, or equipment, that has operational
independence; and
``(iii) the intercity passenger rail benefits anticipated
to result from the grant, such as increased speed, improved
on-time performance, reduced trip time, increased
frequencies, new service, safety improvements, improved
accessibility, or other significant enhancements are detailed
by the grantee and approved by the Secretary.
``(C) The Secretary shall ensure that the project is
maintained to the level of utility that is necessary to
support the benefits approved under subparagraph (B)(iii) for
a period of 20 years from the date the useable segment,
transportation facility, or equipment described in
subparagraph (B)(ii) is placed in service. If the project
property is not maintained as required by this subparagraph
for a period of time in excess of 12 months, then a pro-rata
share of the Federal contribution, based upon the percentage
remaining of the 20-year period that commenced when the
project property was placed in service, shall be refunded.
``(2) Early work.--The Secretary may allow a grantee
subject to this subsection to engage in at-risk work
activities subsequent to the conclusion of final design where
the Secretary determines that such work activities are
reasonable and necessary.''.

SEC. 305. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a
nationwide disparity and availability study on the
availability and use of small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals in publically funded intercity rail passenger
transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code) projects administered by the Federal
Railroad Administration.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report containing the
results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Small business concern.--

[[Page H1592]]

(A) In general.--The term ``small business concern'' means
a small business concern as the term is used in section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``small business concern'' does
not include any concern or group of concerns controlled by
the same socially and economically disadvantaged individual
or individuals that have average annual gross receipts during
the preceding 3 fiscal years in excess of $22,410,000, as
adjusted annually by the Secretary for inflation.
(2) Socially and economically disadvantaged individual.--
The term ``socially and economically disadvantaged
individual'' has the meaning given the term in section 8(d)
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and relevant
subcontracting regulations issued pursuant to that Act,
except that women shall be presumed to be socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals for purposes of this
section.
(d) Funding.--Of the total amount made available to the
Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation
and the Federal Railroad Administration, for each of fiscal
years 2016 and 2017, $3,000,000 shall be used to implement
the requirements of this section.

SEC. 306. GULF COAST RAIL SERVICE WORKING GROUP.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Railroad Administration
shall convene a working group to evaluate the restoration of
intercity rail passenger service in the Gulf Coast region
between New Orleans, Louisiana, and Orlando, Florida.
(b) Membership.--The working group shall consist of
representatives of--
(1) Amtrak;
(2) the States along the proposed route or routes;
(3) regional transportation planning organizations and
metropolitan planning organizations, municipalities, and
communities along the proposed route or routes, selected by
the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration;
(4) the Southern Rail Commission;
(5) freight railroad carriers whose tracks may be used for
such service; and
(6) other entities determined appropriate by the
Administrator.
(c) Responsibilities.--The working group shall--
(1) evaluate all options for restoring intercity rail
passenger service in the Gulf Coast region, including options
outlined in the report transmitted to Congress pursuant to
section 226 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432);
(2) select a preferred option for restoring such service;
(3) develop a prioritized inventory of capital projects and
other actions required to restore such service and cost
estimates for such projects or actions; and
(4) identify Federal and non-Federal funding sources
required to restore such service, including options for
entering into public-private partnerships to restore such
service.
(d) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the working group shall transmit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation in the Senate a report that
includes--
(1) the preferred option selected under subsection (c)(2)
and the reasons for selecting such option;
(2) the information described in subsection (c)(3);
(3) the funding sources identified under subsection (c)(4);
(4) the costs and benefits of restoring intercity rail
passenger transportation in the region; and
(5) any other information the working group determines
appropriate.

SEC. 307. MISCELLANEOUS.

(a) Title 49 Amendments.--Title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in section 22106(b), by striking ``interest thereof''
and inserting ``interest thereon'';
(2) in section 24101(b), by striking ``subsection (d)'' and
inserting ``subsection (c)''; and
(3) in section 24706--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``a discontinuance
under section 24704 or or'';
(B) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``section 24704 or'';
and
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ``section 24704 or''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The item relating to
section 24316 in the table of sections for chapter 243 of
such title is amended by striking ``Plan to assist'' and
inserting ``Plans to address needs of''.
(c) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
Amendments.--Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24101 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``equipment
manufacturers,'' the following: ``nonprofit organizations
representing employees who perform overhaul and maintenance
of passenger railroad equipment,'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``, and may establish a
corporation, which may be owned or jointly-owned by Amtrak,
participating States, or other entities, to perform these
functions''; and
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``and establishing a
jointly-owned corporation to manage that equipment''.

TITLE IV--PROJECT DELIVERY

SEC. 401. PROJECT DELIVERY RULEMAKING.

(a) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall begin a rulemaking
to govern the Federal review, permitting, and approval or
disapproval of--
(1) freight railroad and intercity rail passenger
transportation infrastructure projects, including those that
are carried out or planned to be carried out with the use of
Federal funds administered by the Department of
Transportation through a grant, contract, loan, or other
financing instrument; and
(2) commuter rail passenger transportation (as defined in
section 24102(3) of title 49, United States Code)
infrastructure projects that are funded in whole or in part
through a direct loan or loan guarantee under title V of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45
U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
(b) Deadline.--The Secretary shall complete the rulemaking
required under subsection (a) not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Requirements and Considerations.--The rulemaking under
subsection (a) shall include procedures that--
(1) reduce the aggregate time for review and permitting of
infrastructure projects described under subsection (a) while
preserving existing statutory requirements for public comment
or assessing the impact of a proposed project;
(2) institutionalize or expand best practices or process
improvements that agencies are already implementing to
improve the efficiency of reviews;
(3) identify high-performance attributes of infrastructure
projects described under subsection (a) that demonstrate how
projects seek to advance existing statutory and policy
objectives, thereby facilitating a more efficient review and
permitting process;
(4) create a process to invite Federal agencies and State,
local, and tribal governments to participate in the review
process, expand coordination with such agencies and
governments, and require the identification as early as
practicable in the process of any--
(A) Federal agency or State, local, or tribal government
with jurisdiction over the project or required by law to
conduct or issue a review or make a determination with regard
to the project; and
(B) review, analysis, opinion, and permit, license, or
approval required for the project;
(5) create process efficiencies, including--
(A) designating Federal agencies and State, local, and
tribal governments as cooperating and participating agencies;
(B) conducting concurrent and integrated reviews, analyses,
opinions, and permits, licenses, or approvals to the maximum
extent practicable;
(C) establishing timelines, in coordination with affected
Federal agencies, for completion of those reviews, analyses,
opinions, and permits, licenses, or approvals;
(D) developing a coordination plan and schedule, in
coordination with affected Federal agencies, for
participation in the review by Federal agencies, State,
local, and tribal governments, and the public; and
(E) implementing a process to effectively identify and
resolve issues that may affect completion of reviews in a
timely manner;
(6) effectively engage the public and interested
stakeholders as early in the review process as possible;
(7) include opportunities to use existing share-in-cost
authorities and other nonappropriated funding sources to
support early coordination and project review;
(8) expand the use of information technology tools and
identify priority areas for information technology investment
to replace paperwork processes, enhance effective project
siting decisions, enhance interagency collaboration, and
improve the monitoring of project impacts and mitigation
commitments;
(9) ensure that documents developed under the procedures
are adopted and used by other Federal agencies, and State,
local, and tribal governments, to the maximum extent
practicable, to eliminate redundancy and duplicative reviews;
(10) include improvements to mitigation policies to provide
added predictability, facilitate landscape-scale mitigation
based on conservation plans and regional environmental
assessments, facilitate interagency mitigation plans where
appropriate, ensure accountability and long-term
effectiveness of mitigation activities, and utilize
innovative mechanisms where appropriate; and
(11) develop a process for periodically considering
expansion of categorical exclusions for infrastructure
projects described under subsection (a) that conform to those
of other modal administrations.

SEC. 402. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF RAILROADS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies, including the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers, the National Association of
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and nongovernmental
stakeholders representing the railroad industry and historic
preservation concerns, shall--
(1) administratively pursue program alternatives (as that
term is used in 36 C.F.R. 800.14) to promote a consistent
approach in the treatment of railroad and rail-related
properties for historic preservation review under section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f);
and
(2) develop mechanisms for streamlining compliance with the
requirements of section 303 of title 49, United States Code,
for railroad and rail-related properties.
(b) Considerations.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) consider, among other options, the development of--
(A) programmatic agreements, program comments, exempted
categories of undertakings, and guidance for historic reviews
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(as those terms are used in 36 C.F.R. 800.14); and
(B) programmatic evaluations, de minimis impact
determinations, and regulatory guidance

[[Page H1593]]

for reviews under section 303 of title 49, United States Code
(as those terms are used in 23 C.F.R. 774); and
(2) take into account, at a minimum--
(A) maintenance and repair of railroad and rail-related
property;
(B) repair and replacement of bridges, structures, or
facilities in a like-for-like manner, or when the bridge,
structure, or facility is not a contributing element of a
historic district;
(C) safety-related projects, including installation,
maintenance, and repair of positive train control systems;
(D) management of railroad and rail-related properties that
include both historic and non-historic components;
(E) integration of reviews under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, reviews under section 303
of title 49, United States Code, and environmental reviews;
and
(F) consistency in treatment of railroads nationwide for
historic preservation purposes.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 501. DEFINITION.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Transportation.

SEC. 502. TITLE 49 DEFINITIONS.

(a) Title 49 Amendments.--Section 24102 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (9) as
paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) `long-distance route' means a route described in
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (7).
``(6) `National Network' includes long-distance routes and
State-supported routes.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(12) `state-of-good-repair' means a condition in which
physical assets, both individually and as a system, are--
``(A) performing at a level at least equal to that called
for in their as-built or as-modified design specification
during any period when the life cycle cost of maintaining the
assets is lower than the cost of replacing them; and
``(B) sustained through regular maintenance and replacement
programs.
``(13) `State-supported route' means a route described in
subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (7), or in section
24702, that is operated by Amtrak, excluding those trains
operated by Amtrak on the routes described in paragraph
(7)(A).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 217 of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 24702
note) is amended by striking ``24102(5)(D)'' and inserting
``24102(7)(D)''.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
36. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McNerney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 114-36.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 43, line 24, strike ``where appropriate'' and insert
``including small business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals''.
Page 44, after line 16, insert the following:
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``small
business concern'' and ``socially and economically
disadvantaged individual'' have the meanings given such terms
in section 305(c).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member DeFazio for their work on this. It has been a bipartisan
effort.
It has been a long time since we have seen a rail bill, and it's
about time. We need to do something to improve our rail system. This
bill authorizes $7.2 billion for passenger rail over the next 4 fiscal
years and will help improve Amtrak's service and long-term stability.
It has a wide range of support from all the stakeholders.
I have two Amtrak stations in my region, and both of them are in
communities that are devastated by the economic downturn, and
unfortunately, our small businesses have been slower to recover from
the recession because they have less access to capital and information.
Section 208 of this bill directs Amtrak to submit a report to
Congress within 1 year on the options to enhance economic development
around the Amtrak stations. This provision requires Amtrak to issue a
request for proposals seeking persons or entities to carry out these
proposals.
My amendment encourages the process to be inclusive of socially and
economically disadvantaged businesses while keeping the intent to
strengthen multimodal connections, capturing development-related
streams, meaning multiple revenue sources and better leveraging station
assets.
We need to encourage our socially and economically disadvantaged
small businesses a chance to provide their input and feedback on
station development proposals in and around Amtrak communities.
A disadvantaged business is one that is at least 51 percent owned and
controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals or groups. According to the Minority Business Development
Agency, only 2 percent of all minority-owned firms are considered high
revenue, meaning businesses with annual receipts of over $1 million.
These enterprises account for 68 percent of total receipts and 61
percent of all jobs produced by all minority enterprises.
As these businesses grow and innovate, so does the rest of our
economy. Our society and economy is made stronger from diversity, and
socially and economically disadvantaged businesses should have
information to compete and to be included in all the business
development with public and private entities.
The Department of Transportation has done very well in recognizing
the role that disadvantaged small businesses play in the community. We
must ensure that this also remains true of Amtrak.
We need to see that these disadvantaged areas develop in sync with
the money that is being spent. We just want to make sure that the
information is there so they can compete on a fair basis.
My bill and this amendment is a chance to invest in our intercity
passenger rail service and spur innovation, growth, and investment in
the surrounding communities. I encourage the adoption of my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). Without objection, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does clarify that socially
and economically disadvantaged small businesses can compete for
contracts in the bills dealing with the redevelopment of stations.
A lot of these stations are in downtown areas that are very desirable
for development, and so we want to encourage that. This amendment, I
believe, strengthens the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the good thing about the amendment, it
doesn't cost anything, and I think it will really help some of our
disadvantaged communities.
As the chairman said, these are in the downtown areas that need the
most help, so I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick.

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 114-36.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 63, line 6, insert after ``individuals'' the
following: ``and veteran-owned small businesses''.
Page 64, after line 13, insert the following:
(3) Veteran-owned small business.--
(A) In general.--The term ``veteran-owned small business''
has the meaning given the

[[Page H1594]]

term ``small business concern owned and controlled by
veterans'' in section 3(q)(3) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632(q)(3)).
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``veteran-owned small business''
does not include any concern or group of concerns controlled
by the same veterans that have average annual gross receipts
during the preceding 3 fiscal years in excess of $22,410,000
as adjusted annually by the Secretary for inflation.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the Chair, and I commend and congratulate
Mr. Shuster on his very thoughtful approach to this passenger rail
reform bill, which is poised to pass, and I encourage its passage here
today.
Mr. Chair, our Nation's veterans are the most highly skilled
workforce in our Nation's history. They are the product of rigorous
training and ironclad commitment to teamwork. They have a remarkable
ability to succeed where others might fail.
It is no wonder, then, that nearly 2.5 million veterans own and
operate their own businesses, creating and sustaining over 8 million
jobs for hardworking Americans. However, the current pool of veteran-
owned businesses is getting older, with recent census data showing that
75 percent of current veteran-owned businesses were age 55 and over.
As this older generation of veterans look toward retirement, America
will begin to lose a key driver of economic growth. We need to be
thinking now about how to encourage the next generation of veterans--
the more than 250,000 servicemembers currently transitioning from
military to civilian life--to take up the job-creating mantle of
starting their own veteran-owned businesses.
The numbers are on our side, with one in four veterans saying they
are considering starting or buying their own small business. We cannot
miss this opportunity.
My amendment under consideration today works to ensure we, as a
Congress, are doing everything possible to level the playing field for
these veteran entrepreneurs when competing for Federal contracts. It is
a simple premise that my constituents in Bucks and Montgomery Counties,
Pennsylvania, know and understand as fairness to veterans.
The amendment is straightforward. It adds veteran-owned small
businesses to the small business participation study required under
section 305 of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act. Section
305 directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a nationwide
disparity and availability study on the availability and use of certain
classes of small businesses.
While I am a supporter of having a completely level playing field
throughout Federal contracting for every small business, the fact is,
today, some get a preference when doing business with the Federal
Government when veterans do not.
This amendment begins the process of addressing that discrepancy.
Fairness to veterans is not about dramatically overhauling the current
system, but it is about making sure that if anybody is going to get a
preference, veterans should at least have an equal shot.
Adding them to the study included in the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act will give the Department of Transportation a better
understanding of the availability of veteran-owned small businesses to
help rebuild our crumbling rail infrastructure and hopefully help
highlight the benefit of embracing veteran-owned businesses in all
future Federal infrastructure projects.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support
of this commonsense amendment, which strengthens the underlying bill
and ensures fairness to our veterans.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1330

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even
though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the author, Mr.
Fitzpatrick. It is a great amendment. I wish I had thought of it, to be
perfectly honest. I look forward to supporting it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
His amendment would ensure that veteran-owned small businesses be
considered when they are looking who has historically participated in
Federal funds in all projects, so I strongly support the hiring of
veterans.
I appreciate Mr. Fitzpatrick for offering this bill, and, once again,
it will strengthen the bill, so I support it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Capuano and Chairman Shuster
for their support of this amendment.
Like the previous amendment, there is no cost to including veteran-
owned small businesses in the participation study, no cost to the
Federal taxpayer, good for our Nation's veterans and their own
businesses. I encourage my colleagues to support this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mica

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 114-36.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 68, after line 9, insert the following new section:

SEC. 308. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR EXPRESS SERVICE.

(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure
and Operations Advisory Committee, in consultation with
Amtrak, shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report that analyzes the implementation of non-stop,
high-speed express passenger rail service between Washington,
District of Columbia, and New York, New York, and between New
York, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts. The report shall
consider--
(1) estimated trip time, ridership, revenue, total cost,
capacity, and other metrics for each service;
(2) impacts on existing Amtrak and commuter rail services;
and
(3) impacts on Northeast Corridor infrastructure.
(b) Consideration.--Not later than 90 days after the
transmittal of the report required under subsection (a), the
Amtrak Board of Directors shall consider implementing such
services.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, first of all, I want to thank both
sides of the aisle, particularly the leadership of Chairman Shuster,
Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Denham and others for all working
together in a bipartisan effort.
The last rail reauthorization I did with Mr. Oberstar was the first
one we had done in about 10 years. That was the precedent to this bill,
and we need to do that. We need to act responsibly.
We need to improve passenger rail service in the United States. We
need to take Amtrak and this country from a Third World passenger rail
service with a Soviet-style operation into the 21st century. I think we
can begin to do that with the amendment that I have offered here today
and that we have a bipartisan agreement on.
It is not everything I would like. I am going to try to strengthen it
as it moves through the process. This amendment would potentially open
the Northeast corridor to express service from Washington, D.C., to New
York City and to Boston, and it is great to have Mr. Capuano here.
Right now, the service from Boston to New York City runs 68 miles an
hour on average. That is Third World kind of operations.
I believe that we could have express service for less than 2\1/2\
hours in that corridor, closer to 2 hours with this amendment. Right
now, it goes 83

[[Page H1595]]

miles an hour. That is our high-speed service in the United States.
Now, we are about to put a significant amount of money into the
Northeast corridor, and I have no problem with that. This bill
authorizes that money, some with direct appropriations, about a half
billion dollars a year for each of the next 4 years. Then it also
allows the revenue coming into the Northeast corridor to stay in the
Northeast corridor. I have no problem with that.
Again, what do the rest of us get in the country by putting this
money in? I think we have subsidized Amtrak fairly well. Right now,
every ticket is underwritten--last year, $44.98. This will also provide
a subsidy. I have no problem.
But what do we get back? Seventy percent of all the air traffic
delays in the country are out of the Northeast corridor, the
chronically delayed flights. We will see that, too, today and tomorrow.
We can do a much better job improving service. Imagine getting from
here to Penn Station in less than 2 hours and from Boston down to Penn
Station in record time.
Finally, others have done this. Virgin Trains in England, one of the
leaders in innovation, has increased traffic from 14 million in the
corridor from London up to the north of England, from 14 million to 28
million passengers in less than half a dozen years, an incredible
record that we could replicate here.
We only had 31 million passengers on all of Amtrak last year, a
little less than that; and we could double the number of people
employed, the number of people working.
I have always supported labor in this. We are not trying to do this
at any substandard wages. We want to make certain that all of those
commitments to our brothers and sisters in labor are honored.
This is the beginning of a proposal to open this up, the Northeast
corridor, and the commission actually will report back to Congress with
those proposals. It won't be buried. It is going to come back to us,
and then we can move it forward.
It is time to take us into the next era of passenger rail service in
this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even
though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman
from Florida.
Again, he stands up tall to defend the idea of passenger rail. We
totally agree on that concept. We totally agree on trying to make--
especially the Northeast corridor--a more efficient rail.
I think this study, this commission might help us. I hope it does. I
am pleased to stand up today and support this amendment and
congratulate the gentleman for offering it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I
believe, once again, this study can have positive impact on us.
I also commend the chairman, the former chairman of the committee,
for his passion. He is absolutely right as far as getting these trains
to run faster, to have less stops. We can create, I believe, in the
long term, this express corridor.
He is right that while the Europeans are moving at speeds twice that
rate, we can do better in the United States, and I believe this study
will help us move in that direction in the future.
I thank the gentleman and support the amendment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, in 2010, when we were in the
minority, we had a little more time on our hands. I published this
report in the Transportation Committee, ``The Federal Government Must
Stop Sitting on its Assets,'' and listed in here is the Northeast
corridor. It is one of the greatest assets we have, from here to
Boston, and we need to utilize that asset.
We can put in better service, and I think we can do this through this
particular amendment. We have got to stop sitting on a valuable asset.
It is the only corridor that we own. The other 22,000 miles of rail
service is all on freight private rail.
We can and we must adopt this amendment to get us on our way. Thank
you, and I hope everybody is on board.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 114-36.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 503. STATE ACTION PLANS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall require--
(1) each State, other than those States identified pursuant
to section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (49
U.S.C. 22501 note), to develop and implement, not later than
18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, a State
grade crossing action plan; and
(2) each State that was identified pursuant to section 202
of such Act to update its plan and submit to the Secretary,
not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, a report describing what the State did to implement the
plan.
(b) Contents.--Each plan required under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) identify specific solutions for improving safety at
crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or
grade separations; and
(2) focus on crossings that have experienced recent grade
crossing accidents or multiple accidents, or are at high risk
for accidents.
(c) Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide assistance to
the States in developing and carrying out, as appropriate,
the plan required under subsection (a).
(d) Conditions.--The Secretary may condition the awarding
of any grants under section 103 of this Act to a State on the
development of such State's grade crossing action plan.
(e) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make each
plan and report publicly available on an official Internet
Web site.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Brownley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a
simple, commonsense amendment to the Passenger Rail Reform and
Investment Act of 2015.
My amendment would require each State to develop a grade crossing
action plan, identifying specific solutions for improving safety at
rail-highway crossings; furthermore, my amendment would direct States
to focus resources on crossings that have experienced recent grade
crossing accidents, multiple accidents, or crossings that are at high
risk for accidents.
Mr. Chairman, a week ago Tuesday, our Nation witnessed yet another
tragic rail accident in my district when Metrolink Ventura County line
102 crashed into a truck along the train tracks in Oxnard.
While there are many unanswered questions about this accident, one
issue is abundantly clear. As a nation, we must do more to address
rail-highway crossing safety and address the increasing backlog of
safety projects nationwide. Currently, California ranks second in the
Nation in the number of crossing accidents.
Nationally, the Federal Railroad Administration estimates that there
were over 2,000 accidents at railroad crossings in 2013, with 251
fatalities and 929 injuries.
As many residents of Ventura County know, this is not the first time
an accident has occurred at the Rice Avenue intersection. This is a
heavily-used corridor for both rail goods movement, passenger rail--
both Amtrak and Metrolink--as well as automobiles and truck traffic.
Unfortunately, like many local communities across the Nation, Ventura
County cannot, on its own, fund rail-highway crossing safety
improvements.
As a member of this committee, I am pleased that this bill provides
funds for

[[Page H1596]]

passenger rail infrastructure, and I strongly support the provision
that permits funds to be used for crossing safety improvements because
we all know these investments benefit not only safety, but also our
regional and national economies.
In 2014, we invested $220 million in the Railway-Highway Crossings
Program at the Federal level; yet, under title 49, only 10 States are
required by Federal law to have action plans prioritizing rail-highway
safety improvements.
It is critically important for Congress to ensure that Federal
dollars for passenger rail infrastructure improvements are used wisely.
We must also ensure that Federal funds are prioritized to address
safety improvements at the most dangerous crossings first.
My amendment would get at the heart of this issue by requiring every
State to have a specific plan in place that will ensure both the wise
use of tax dollars and address rail-highway grade crossing safety in a
systematic way.
I ask my colleagues to vote for my commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do
not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for offering this amendment.
While grade crossing incidents have dropped 40 percent since 2000,
the tragic events in Ms. Brownley's district last week remind us how
important it is to be aware of grade crossings.
This amendment requiring States to develop and implement plans to
improve safety at grade crossings within their borders, I think, adds
strength to the bill. I would also note there are similar grade
crossing reporting requirements in the Federal highway program, and we
should work with the Senate during conference to reauthorize the
surface transportation programs, ensuring that there is consistency
among the requirements at those grade crossings.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I thank the chairman for your
extraordinary work on this bill--and a bipartisan bill as well--and I
thank you for accepting the amendment.
Rail-highway crossing safety problems are not unique to my district.
Sadly, my colleagues have also experienced recent tragedies. On Monday,
a Long Island Rail Road train struck a car stopped on the tracks in
East Rockaway. In February, a Metro-North train struck a sport utility
vehicle, tragically killing the driver and five train passengers in
Valhalla.
I strongly believe that Congress, along with State and local
governments, must address this safety issue as a matter of urgency, and
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I would like to speak
in support of her amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman ask unanimous consent to
reclaim her time?
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Yes.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Yes, I yield.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I would like to support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do
so.
They are putting in a high-speed rail in my State now, running over
100 miles through my district, something that will go 120-plus miles an
hour through the middle of small towns and communities which are ill-
prepared and ill-equipped to safely facilitate that high rate of
traffic.
I wish I had thought ahead to bring some illustrations, photographs,
or diagrams of some of the intersections that this train will go
blazing through without much thought to the pedestrians, the vehicles,
the men, women, and children in the community that will be put in
danger by it.
I think this is a great amendment. If you are going to use Federal
money--I see that the gentlelady said it is for projects that use
Federal money, not an unfunded mandate--but if you are going to use the
Federal money, you are going to use these RIF loans, some of which
appear to be in the process of being granted in direct conflict of the
requirements of granting the RIF loans, the very least we could do is
insist that the money is used safely in our districts.

{time} 1345

The very least we could do is insist that the money is used safely in
our districts.
So I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I urge my colleagues to
support this great amendment.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McClintock) assumed the chair.

____________________