washington and around the country. you'll hear from leading annists, policy makers and journalists. find it on ie tunes, stitcher and google play and online any time at c-span.org. congress has set a deadline of december 31st of i remember lim limiting technology called positive train control. they discuss in this two-hour hearing. morning.

we convene at a critical time for positive train control or ptc. families of the crash in south carolina remain in our thoughts and prayers. while tragic collisions like the one involving am track special train 923 are not reduced by ptc reducing the accidents remain a prioritime prioritime prioritiment. more alarmingly, a report from the government's exhibit no. ao find 17 railways are not --

congress and signed into law by president obama in october of 2015 you can tended the original dead ion of december 31, 2015 amid report that is no railroad could meet the deadline and many were contemplating halting service. this committee on a bipartisan basis took administration to avoid a shutdown. with this frame work in place, railroads should be anyone to get it done. it allows the railroad to apply for an extension up to 24 months to make sure the ptc works as intended if and only if it meets the pull ptc hardware installation and such as implementing it on a specific

territory. for class one freight railroad and am track it can bar is higher. ptc must be installed. all ptc hardware must be on board or in the ground by december 31, 2018. is law requires plans to include metrics and provide a new authority for the fra for those plans. fra initiated cases against 14 railroads that failed to report progress in a timely manner. i expect the fra to take the enforcement action needed. railroads should not cown on any extensions to the frame work

congress passed in 2015. to be sure, ptc is an enormous undertaking. yet, they all must work seam leslie crass your nation's interwoven network. there are a limited number of individuals who have the technical expertise to program the hardware. simply put, ptc is not an off the shelf technology, and a railroad can't simply flip a switch. understanding these challenges, the federal government has provided substantial funding and financing to support for implementation. a new report from the department of transportation office of inspector general, which i requested, which will be also released today, shows d.o.t. has awarded nearly $3 billion in grant and loan assistance with

$2.3 billion provided to date and another 600 million on the way. this includes much of the $199 million this committee worked to include in the fast act. for instance, this financial support includes a $960 million loan and a nearly $100 million grant to support the metropolitan transportation authority, one of our witnesses today. not all financial assistance should come from the federal government, with a significant amount of federal support not yet expended it is critical -- i they do so be ever the deadline. i want to conclude my remarks by emphasizing what is at stake here. failing to comply with the law is not an option. if commuter railroads do not meet the requirements of the law, there is a real risk of halting or reducing service. if so, millions of people who depend on commuter rail to get to work each day, or to visit a doctor, or see a family member, could see their lives disrupted. those entities that aren't on track need to look at successful examples, and recommit their

organizations to getting the job done. i will now turn to ranking member senator nelson for any opening remarks he might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and before i address the topic at hand, i want to wonder what in the world is going on at the fra? because it was just reported yesterday, allegations by politico, that the acting head safety regulator, heath hall, heath hall, of the federal railroad administration is in a huge conflict because, according to the report, throughout his tenure, and even at the time of the washington state railroad

crash, the acting administrator was doing outside work as a public relations consultant. this was a violation of his ethics agreement, and it's very alarming for the safety of our railroads, particularly as the agency is tasked with the oversight of the positive train control implementation. and it's tasked with responding to these tragic series of crashes that we've had. now to the issue at hand. i certainly appreciate the chairman for calling this hearing on positive train control. i wish i could say that this technology was in place be working so they we wouldn't have to keep having these deadly accidents. but it's in the the case.

instead, we are here again after another tragic crash that has killed several people and injured dozens. which could have been prevented with positive train control technology. in washington state, an am track train was speeding as it rounded boo a curve and derailed on to the highway below, killing three people and injuring more than 60. the facts of the case are eerily similar of a case in philadelphia that a train derailed while traveling into a curve killing eight, and injuring hundreds. and just last month, an amtrak train traveling in florida was in a head-on collision with a csx freight train. the engineer and the train

conductor from florida were killed in the collision, and more than 100 people were injured. so these tragedies can be prevented. they should be prevented. and that's why the industry must do a better job of implementing positive train control and get it done quickly. and that's why the u.s. government ought to crack down. we've heard for far too long from some in the industry that implementing positive train control is a complex and expensive process, and that railroads have faced a series of challenges. we've heard this over and over and over. but more and more, these arguments are becoming tiresome. especially in light of the fact that the railroads have had ten years to get this done. now, i know that railroads have

had to overcome challenges. but railroads like bnsf, septa commuter rail and others have made significant progress toward implementation. and they should be applauded. but some railroads are way behind the curve and shockingly, according to the d.o.t. have made zero progress. and unfortunately that includes many railroads in my state. now, that's just simply unacceptable. in 2015 none of the railroads were near completion. so the railroads, the commuter rails, the states, the countless others, requested an extension of positive train control, as did the administration at the time in 2015.

so reluctantly we, sitting at this dias, discussed it, we granted additional time, but demanded real action, including completion of a quipping the locomotives on the tracks. significant testing and evidence that their systems work, and new penalties for the department to ensure that the railroads are meeting their deadlines. we provided $200 million in grant funding in addition to the more than $2 billion in federal support that had previously been provided. and the effort was supposed to ensure that ptc was going to be done, this year. we heard repeatedly that given a limited amount of time, railroads would be able to get the ptc in place.

yet here we go again. just what the chairman has said. and now it's become crystal clear that many of the railroads simply have not lived up to their agreement. and so i'm very -- well, let me just say it this way. i'm not inclined to give anymore additional time because do we want more crashes? that ptc could avoid? so it means that railroads need to make sure that they're doing everything possible to meet the 2018 deadline. states and the department of transportation have got to come together to ensure all available resources are being directed to this task. and finally the department must use its authority to hold railroads' feet to the fire. madam secretary, the department of transportation ought to be cracking down.

we have a responsibility to the traveling public to learn from these tragic crashes. we've got a responsibility to make sure that there's safety on the lines. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. i want to welcome our panel of witnesses this morning, and thank them for their testimony in advance and ask them to give their opening statements. we first have susan fleming at the government accountability office. mr. barry dewees, who's assistant inspector general, department of transportation, office of the inspector general, mr. david meyer, who is the chief safety officer for metropolitan transportation authority, and mr. richard anderson who's president and ceo of amtrak. we'll start on my left and your right with ms. fleming. i would ask you if you can to confine your oral remarks as close to five minutes as possible. we'll make sure your entire statement is included in the record, but it will maximize the opportunity for members to ask questions. ms. fleming, welcome and please

proceed. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member nelson and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss commuter railroads' implementation of positive train control, or ptc, and fra's oversight of that effort. despite rail safety improvements in recent years, additional accidents, including multiple fatal accidents in the past three months show that more needs to be done. ptc is not designed to and cannot prevent all rail accidents. nonetheless, successful implementation of ptc provides significant promise in helping avoid certain types of accidents. our broader body of work on ptc has found implementation is costly and complex, has been fraught with challenges, and progress has been slow. while the implementation of ptc involves numerous stakeholders, my testimony today focuses on the 29 commuter railroads that

transport approximately 500 million passengers each year, and fra which is charged with overseeing implementation. turning to commuter railroads' implementation progress, we've found based on third quarter 2017 data that most of the railroads reported progress in initial implementation activities, such as installing equipment on trains alongside tracks, acquiring radio spectrum and employee training. however, progress varied widely across individual railroads, in part because of their varying size and unique set of circumstances. for example, equipping locomotives was one of the areas of greatest variance. 13 completed equipment installation, while six had not yet started. the remaining eight fell somewhere in between. significant work also remains for the majority of commuter railroads to complete more technically complex and time-consuming implementation activities such as field testing software and components and revenue service demonstration

which tests trains operating ptc as part of regular operations. as of september, fra had approved conditional certification for two railroads and was reviewing two other safety plans. digging deeper, to estimate how many commuter railroads may have insufficient time to meet the december deadline or to qualify for an rsd based extension, we analyzed commuter railroads scheduled milestones for installing the back office server, and conducting field testing, which must be completed before entering rsd. based on railroads' experience to date, and fra's estimate of the amount of time it can take to complete these steps, over half of commuter railroads may be at risk of not meeting the december deadline, or qualifying for an rsd-based extension. however, many factors could affect how many railroads are ultimately at risk. for example, some schedules may slip, while others may benefit

from applying lessons learned. fra's resources and capacity will also affect how quickly it can review the increasing flow of submitted test plans, rsd applications, and safety plans. speaking of fra, i now want to turn to its role in helping ensure ptc is successfully implemented. fra has provided substantial information to individual and groups of commuter railroads. as well as highly praised individual assistance. however, we found two shortcomings with its approach. first, fra has used a largely informal and often reactive communications approach. second, many commuter railroads did not fully understand the agency's planned approach for reviewing and granting extensions, or the criteria for applying for an extension. the statutory provision allowing for other alternative criteria approved by fra, instead of the rsd criteria, generated the most questions. for the long term we found that although fra collects individual railroad's progress information, it does not use this information

to prioritize resources using a risk-based approach. this will be essential given the year end deadline approaching, and ant pated significant increase in workload and oversight responsibilities that will clearly stretch beyond 2020. and the yet to be tackled issue of interoperablity. in conclusion, there is no ignoring the fact the clock is ticking. ten months and considerable work remains to either complete implementation or apply for an extension. even with sustained commitment from all 25 commuter railroads that have yet to file a safety plan, it is highly unlikely that all will meet the extension, or implementation deadline. therefore, it is critical that fra implement our two recommendations. first, to systematically communicate deadline extension criteria information and its planned approach, including how it will handle railroads that do not meet the deadline or extension criteria. and second, to use a risk-based approach to prioritize its recommendations and workload.

fra agreed with our recommendations. mr. chairman, this concludes my statement. i'd be pleased to answer questions that you or other members of the committee may have. >> thank you, ms. fleming. mr. dewees. >> ranking member nelson and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to this important hearing. several fatal road crashes over the past decade have heightened the need to implement ptc, one of the most complex and costly safely mandates the railroad has undertaken. the deadline is at the end of this year. at this committee's request we are currently reviewing federal funding support for ptc, and d.o.t.'s oversight of that support. we plan to issue our full report this spring, and today i will share observations on three aspects of our ongoing review. one, the amount of federal financial assistance for ptc

two, d.o.t.'s oversight of federal funds invested in such projects, and three, key funding challenges and concerns as the rail industry implements ptc.