The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“AMTRAK ROUTE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1995” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E277-E278 on Feb. 6, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
AMTRAK ROUTE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1995
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Monday, February 6, 1995
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am today, along with Mr. Barton, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Packard, Mr. Fox, and Mr. English, introducing the Amtrak Route Closure and Realignment Act of 1995. Before I elaborate on this legislation, I want to say that this is not an attempt to eliminate passenger rail service in the United States.
This is an attempt to save it. This bill is about an economic rebirth of a system headed for financial disaster--a disaster that would
[[Page E278]] loom large even if the American taxpayers were willing to continue present subsidies. And they are not.
When the private railroads turned over their passenger business to the Government in 1971, Congress made what was referred to as a one-
time grant of $140 million for startup help. More than two decades later, a total of about $15 billion in taxpayer assistance has been granted to Amtrak.
This legislation seeks to achieve the evolution of a passenger rail network in this Nation which can be viable on greatly reduced taxpayer subsidies. Current Federal subsidies for Amtrak, including operating, capital, and mandatory retirement payments, total more than $1 billion annually. Of that total, nearly $400 million is for operating subsidies. The goal of this legislation would be to reduce and possibly phase out the operating subsidies over a 5-year period.
In December, the Amtrak Board of Directors took very positive action in announcing some route closings, truncations, and frequency reductions. But these realignments were targeted only at dealing with the current revenue shortfall of about $200 million. These decisions, painful as they were, represent just the first step. Much more remains to be done.
Since some of Amtrak's unprofitable routes have been mandated by Congress, it is imperative that Congress provide Amtrak with the assistance needed to reinvent this system into one that is operated under strict business principles.
My legislation would remove the painful decisions that must be made from the political realm and place them in the hands of an independent Commission modeled after BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The Total Realignment of Amtrak Commission [TRAC] would conduct an economic analysis of the entire Amtrak system and hold public hearings around the country to ensure that the public and other stakeholders were given the opportunity to be heard. This would be as fair a process as humanly possible with the end goal to make recommendations on route closings and other realignments urgently needed to ensure the survival of a passenger rail system in America.
In addition to economic data, TRAC would also review nonmonetary data such as the contributions made by certain routes toward alleviation of airport congestion, pollution abatement, and energy conservation. This Commission would also examine alternative modes of transportation in rural areas, as well as look at uses communities could make of abandoned rail lines.
Under my legislation, no segment of the Amtrak system would be exempt from review, including the Northeast corridor. TRAC would also examine the ridership forecasts and other assumptions underlying the Northeast corridor, particularly with respect to the continuation of the electrification of this corridor from New Haven to Boston, a project that will demand large subsidies in future years. This is about a $2 billion project, with nearly $500 million already expended.
The recommendations of this Commission would not be limited to a system which offers national, interconnected service. After the completion of systemwide economic analysis, the Commission could find, for example, that the only system which can be justified to the taxpayers is one that provides regional services. However, connectivity could be an option examined by States along currently unprofitable long haul routes. If States would decide to continue service along such routes slated for closure, State officials could contract with Amtrak to continue service, possibly using flexibility under block grants.
I would point out that, under current law, this Commission would face a difficult dilemma. Because the Rail Labor Protection Act mandates payment of 6 years of full benefits to any rail worker who loses a job due to a route closing, many of the most unprofitable routes would cost more to close than to keep them limping along at a loss. In fact, under the 30-mile rule also in current law, an Amtrak employee is entitled to demand the full severance package if he is merely relocated 30 miles or more. No union workers in the private sector are afforded such generous severance compensation, and these astronomical costs are one of the reasons that every trip on this system costs American taxpayers $25.
My colleague, Mr. Barton of Texas, has reintroduced his legislation to remedy this dilemma by limiting such severance benefits to 6 months and by eliminating the so-called 30-mile rule. I am supporting my colleague's bill and its speedy enactment would be very helpful to the decisions which would have to be made by the route closing Commission.
After conducting a complete, systemwide, economic review, TRAC would present its recommendations to Congress. The Commission's recommendations would then be considered by Congress under an expedited timeframe with no amendments permitted and an up-or-down vote.
The members of TRAC would be appointed by the President and by the majority leadership in the House and Senate, in consultation with minority leadership in both bodies. My legislation calls for the membership of the Commission to be comprised of individuals with expertise in rail finance, economic analysis, legal issues, and other relevant areas. Also serving on the Commission would be the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, one representative of a rail labor union, and one member of rail management.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that saving passenger rail service in this country requires objective analysis and urgent remedies. And, I believe it has to be a system that we can justify to the taxpayers.
____________________
