[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16719-16721]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

                         POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the unfortunate 
extension of the deadline for the implementation of positive train 
control, or PTC.
  As one of the authors of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008--
which established the PTC mandate--I stand here committed to ensuring 
that PTC is installed on all our Nation's railways as soon as possible.
  Current law states railroads must fully install PTC by the end of 
this year. For a variety of reasons, we all know this is not feasible 
for all railroads. But we can't let this drag on indefinitely.
  It's a matter of public safety. We must get this done.
  The focus of the current debate has been on why an extension of the 
mandate is necessary, but I would like to take a step back and remind 
my colleagues why the mandate itself is necessary.
  On September 12, 2008, the inattentive conductor of a Metrolink 
train--a commuter railroad in the Los Angeles area--missed a red light 
and entered a stretch of single track going the wrong way.
  The train collided with a Union Pacific freight train, which 
completely demolished the first commuter car. The accident killed 25 
and injured more than 100.
  This was an absolute tragedy for my State and the country.
  What is even more tragic: It was 100 percent preventable. Had PTC 
been installed, we would have avoided this tragedy.
  The National Transportation Safety Board has been recommending the 
installation of PTC since an accident in Connecticut in 1969.
  This technology is lifesaving. It prevents train-to-train collisions 
and overspeed derailments and other rail dangers.
  PTC could have saved 25 lives in Chatsworth. In fact, PTC could have 
saved at least 288 lives and prevented more than 6,500 injuries in 
accidents across 36 States since 1969.
  In 2008, at long last, Congress passed a law requiring PTC 
implementation by the end of 2015, giving railroads 7 years to comply.
  It is extremely disappointing that most railroads will not meet this 
deadline.
  It didn't have to be this way.
  The passenger railroads in California took this legal and moral 
imperative seriously. They committed resources.
  In fact, Metrolink will be the first system in the Nation to fully 
implement positive train control when the Federal Railroad 
Administration gives its final certification by the end of this year.
  The Bay Area is also well ahead of the curve. Caltrain will begin 
operating PTC on its line between Gilroy and San Francisco by the end 
of the year, with final certification expected early next year.
  These stories show that it can be done on time.
  But the sad fact is few railroads will meet the 2015 deadline as 
mandated by law.
  Yes, there were some unanticipated challenges and procedural hurdles 
that have contributed to the delay.
  But more devastating were legal challenges from the industry and 
railroads failing to commit the necessary resources.
  So here we are today, debating an extension.
  Let me be very clear: the PTC extension provision the House sent over 
is flawed.
  In my view, we need to be forcing railroads to implement this as soon 
as possible, and the House proposal fails to do that.
  Instead, it gives all railroads a blanket extension until 2018, even 
those that would be done well before then.
  The Secretary of Transportation can take enforcement actions against 
railroads that miss certain annual milestones between now and 2018, but 
the railroads themselves get to establish those milestones in the first 
place.
  After the 3-year blanket extension, railroads can request an 
additional 2-year extension, so long as a railroad is about halfway 
complete with implementation.
  That means they will have until 2020--12 years after Congress first 
mandated the technology and 50 years since the National Transportation 
Safety Board began calling for it.
  This is effectively a 5-year extension, precisely what railroads have 
been lobbying for.
  There are better options available.
  In fact, we anticipated the need for an extension years ago and 
worked to find reasonable compromises.
  First, in 2012, we tried to modify the mandate.

[[Page 16720]]

  I supported a provision that passed the Senate in that year's 
transportation reauthorization bill.
  It would have kept the deadline in 2015, but allowed the 
administration to grant up to three 1-year extensions to railroads on a 
case-by-case basis only when necessary and where railroads were working 
diligently.
  But the railroads wanted 5 years, and the provision was dropped from 
the final bill.
  Then earlier this year, debate began anew.
  The Commerce Committee approved a bill that would provide railroads 
with a blanket extension of 5 to 7 years.
  I thought that was reckless and unnecessarily long.
  Together with several of my colleagues, we reintroduced separate 
legislation along the lines of the provision that passed the Senate in 
2012.
  This started negotiations that led to the two different provisions 
now included in the House and Senate transportation reauthorization 
bills.
  These provisions are each much improved from a blanket 5- to 7-year 
extension, but both remain flawed.
  In my view, it would be fair and reasonable for the remaining policy 
differences between these two provisions to be resolved during 
conference.
  I hope the conference would lead to a policy that takes the best 
parts of both approaches and would be packaged as part of a bill that 
provided sufficient resources for the commuter railroads to comply with 
the mandate. We should let that process play out.
  We should not rush to pass bad policy on this 3-week extension.
  I now want to take a moment to describe something that has disturbed 
me throughout this entire process.
  That is the aggressive stance of the railroad industry.
  As we have seen in public, railroads have threatened to stop service 
for rail passengers around Christmas and stop transporting certain 
chemicals before that.
  Union Pacific's demand letter was the most explicit, acknowledging 
that ``this will cause significant economic disruption for our 
country,'' but that it ``is in the best interest of our employees and 
shareholders.''
  The railroads claim that the fines that will be charged next year by 
the Federal Railroad Administration would be so draconian that they 
would be unable to continue operating as railroads.
  It is very difficult to believe the government would fine railroads 
to such an extreme. The government's goal is simply to compel the 
fastest possible implementation of PTC.
  The railroads also say that in the event of a PTC-preventable 
accident, they would be liable for excessive damages. But as we all 
know, there is a liability cap for passenger accidents.
  And for hazardous materials accidents, the railroads have been 
shipping chlorine and ammonia for decades. It is offensive that only 
when a railroad could face full liability for an accident that they 
find operation without PTC to be unacceptably dangerous.
  The railroads' overtly political threats of economic calamity are not 
constructive. They serve only to create a hysterical atmosphere that 
prevents meaningful negotiations.
  It is entirely inappropriate that the railroad industry would make 
hostages of America's passenger rail services and chemical shippers in 
order to secure their favored legislative outcome.
  What we are discussing today is a bad proposal. We should be 
prioritizing public safety. But this House-passed provision does not.
  The proper place for this debate is in the long-term transportation 
reauthorization bill.
  It is very unfortunate that this has been attached to a must-pass 
short term extension of the highway trust fund.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today's extension of the deadline to 
fully implement positive train control technology is deeply 
disappointing. Passing this extension means that our rail system failed 
to make good on its original deadline, despite having nearly 7 years to 
do so.
  There are many reasons for the failure to meet this deadline, and the 
responsibility for this failure is widely shared. The critical bottom 
line, however, is that positive train control saves lives. And we were 
tragically reminded of that fact again last May, when the derailment of 
a speeding train near Philadelphia killed eight passengers, including a 
wonderful Michigan native, Rachel Jacobs, and injured 200 others. Had 
positive train control been in place on this section of track, it could 
have prevented this terrible tragedy.
  I understand that today's extension includes concrete milestones, new 
progress reports, and stronger oversight by the Department of 
Transportation to ensure positive train control is a reality sooner 
rather than later. This needs to be a top priority for all of those 
responsible for getting this done. This extension should not be seen as 
an excuse to slow progress. We cannot allow any further delays on 
installing this essential, lifesaving technology.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, as the Senate votes today on a short-term 
extension of the highway trust fund and an extension of the deadline 
for positive train control, I rise to discuss the importance of 
transportation safety and the need for vigorous oversight as both 
passenger and freight railroads strive to implement this life-saving 
technology.
  Congress passed legislation 7 years ago that gave our Nation's rail 
carriers until December 31 of this year to fully deploy and implement 
positive train control, or PTC, on all rail lines that carry passengers 
or toxic substances. Some railroads have made the investments necessary 
to make significant progress in meeting this deadline, and others have 
been slower for a number of reasons, ranging from the costs to the 
complexity of the technology.
  The necessity of quickly implementing PTC took on a renewed urgency 
in May of this year when Amtrak train 188 derailed in Philadelphia, 
taking the lives of eight passengers and injuring hundreds more. PTC 
could have prevented this accident, and I am grateful the Federal 
Railroad Administration took swift action with Amtrak to improve safety 
in certain high-risk sections of the Northeast corridor. But more must 
be done across the country and as soon as possible.
  In recent months, with a deadline looming, Members on both sides of 
the aisle have heard from railroads as well as downstream producers, 
shippers, and manufacturers who rely on transporting goods by rail. All 
stakeholders seem to recognize the importance of using new technology 
to make our railways safer. What has not had equal consensus is how 
long it should take for this new technology to be installed and 
utilized. Recent legislative proposals, including in the Senate-passed 
DRIVE Act, would have created enforcement loopholes that weaken the 
tools of Federal safety regulators.
  The bipartisan PTC language considered today closes these loopholes 
and sets a new implementation deadline of December 31, 2018. Railroads 
will be required to set up implementation plans with clear benchmarks 
and timelines that will be enforceable by the Department of 
Transportation.
  In what I hope will be very rare cases in which railroads may need an 
extension beyond that deadline, a limited period, not to exceed 24 
months in total, may be applied should the railroad meet strict 
criteria. These criteria include having PTC already implemented in the 
majority of its territories, acquisition of all needed spectrum for 
implementation, installation of all necessary hardware components, 
completion of employee trainings, and any additional criteria 
established by the Secretary.
  While railroads and commuter authorities face an immense challenge in 
implementing PTC, now and always, we must place the safety of our 
citizens above the fear of difficulties incurred by necessary 
technological change.
  As Congress extends the deadline for this lifesaving technology, we 
must also extend our oversight and commit to meticulous and thorough 
review of the ongoing implementation process. We should confirm 
outstanding nominees, including the nominee for FRA

[[Page 16721]]

Administrator, who has direct oversight responsibilities over PTC. 
Congress must also invest more in our Nation's infrastructure and 
enable railroads to access grants and various funding sources to help 
implement this technology, as well as other critical safety and state-
of-good-repair needs. We should remain diligent in ensuring that 
critical benchmarks and good-faith efforts to install the technology 
are being made by industry and, if necessary, take actions to ensure 
compliance.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with me in calling for reasonable and 
commonsense conditions as we work to ensure every train hauling people 
and toxic materials in this Nation can operate as safely as possible 
with new technology.

                          ____________________