Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chair, in the last 5 years, moving crude oil by train has grown exponentially from a virtually nonexistent industry to a booming one with no signs of slowing down; but after a number of high-profile derailments, the need for increased safety regulations on shipping hazardous materials via rail could not be clearer.

Last week, I had the privilege of attending a first responder training course that was focused on crude oil trains at the Port of Albany, which has become a major hub for crude oil shipments, processing more than 40,000 carloads last year. I know rail carriers and emergency planners are taking it upon themselves to prepare for handling hazardous materials in increased volumes, but regulatory steps are also needed.

We need a comprehensive approach to address this issue, including expanding route planning and selection requirements, requiring response plans for rail carriers and ensuring shippers and rail carriers are testing and classifying their shipments appropriately. Many of these suggestions have been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Many of the reforms I support are common sense. For example, comprehensive oil spill response plans are currently required for oil shipments greater than 1,000 barrels per tank car, but most tank cars only hold 700 barrels; therefore, trains, some with as many as 120 cars that are carrying crude oil, are not required to have comprehensive response plans because of this outdated threshold. Among other safety issues, tank car safety, particularly in regard to the DOT-111s, is a major concern for many of my constituents.

Every day, trains transporting Bakken crude oil move and idle next to public housing and the highway near Albany's South End before entering the Port of Albany. Everyone agrees--railroads, suppliers and the NTSB, to name a few--that we need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and an aggressive phaseout or retrofit of the old DOT-111s, which have no business transporting hazardous materials. Only 14,000 of 92,000 DOT-111 tank cars are currently built to the latest industry standards. The remaining 78,000 have demonstrated that they are prone to splitting open during derailments.

The rail industry has taken meaningful and voluntary steps to account for the DOT-111s' inadequacies, including raising the industry standard for cars built after October of 2011, but we need higher Federal standards. This is long overdue, and DOT must act.

I know this is an issue my good friend from New York, Ranking Member Lowey, is passionate about as well. Earlier this year, we sent a letter to Secretary Foxx, urging him to move forward with a rulemaking process that includes phasing out the DOT-111s. We should harmonize our regulations with Canada's already announced plan, which includes a 3-year phaseout or retrofit of DOT-111s. Just this morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Secretary Foxx about DOT's rulemaking process. I know this is a top priority for him, and I have been assured that it is moving forward aggressively. I encourage a speedy but appropriate resolution.

I also appreciate that the chair included language urging a comprehensive approach to rail safety. The language directs the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to update emergency spill response planning thresholds and to finalize a rule on tank cars by the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fully funds the President's request for FRA's safety and operations account and PHMSA's hazardous materials account.

Finally, the manager's amendment, during the full committee markup, designated some funds to hire additional safety staff to monitor routing and to make safety improvements on grade crossings that carry energy products. This, indeed, is a positive step. However, I would have preferred the inclusion of $40 million, as in the President's budget request, to establish a safe transportation of energy products fund within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in order to support prevention and response activities.

Aside from the crude-by-rail issues, I understand the challenges of the current funding allocations, but I must strongly oppose this bill's shortfalls in numerous infrastructure and transit accounts. The FTA's Capital Investment Grant program is $809 million below the request. Amtrak's capital grants are cut by $200 million, and TIGER only receives $100 million, shamefully shortfalling what we need.

It is my hope that we can improve this bill during conference, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to include appropriate levels for underfunded programs while building upon this bill's rail safety provisions.

Again, I want to thank Chairmen Rogers and Latham and Ranking Members Lowey and Pastor for their attention to this critical rail safety issue.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source