[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEW HANDS ON THE AMTRAK THROTTLE
=======================================================================
(109-101)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RAILROADS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-671 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BOB FILNER, California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
GARY G. MILLER, California EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
SAM GRAVES, Missouri PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JON PORTER, Nevada JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair (ex officio)
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(ex officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Kummant, Alex, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak.... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida.................................. 22
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 25
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 27
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 39
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESS
Kummant, Alex.................................................... 35
NEW HANDS ON THE AMTRAK THROTTLE
----------
Thursday, September 28, 2006,
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Railroads, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steven
C. LaTourette [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. LaTourette. The Subcommittee on Rail will come to order
this morning. Good morning. I want to welcome you all to this
morning's hearing entitled New Hands on the Amtrak Throttle.
Our one and only witness today is Mr. Alexander Kummant, who is
the new president of Amtrak.
Mr. Kummant, I want to welcome you to your first hearing
before our Subcommittee, where I can assure you that we all
have a keen interest in Amtrak and passenger rail. I understand
that you have had quite a career in the private sector before
accepting the top job at Amtrak. I hope that you can tell us a
little bit more about yourself and how you came to be
interested in running our Nation's passenger railroads.
I would note for the record, as I looked over your resume,
two things jumped out at me that perhaps your first rail job
was in Lorraine, Ohio, and secondly, that you are a graduate of
Case Western Reserve University. So in my part of the world at
least, I am happy to see you in your new job.
Amtrak has had its share of critics over the years and
stacks of reports have been written on how to improve the
company's operations. Meanwhile, both the Northeast Corridor
and Amtrak's aging long distance fleet have continued to
deteriorate due to lack of capital funding. There are also some
labor issues needing attention, some of Amtrak's unions have
not had a contract in many years. In certain locations like New
York City and the west coast, Amtrak is having trouble
attracting skilled labor because wages are so low.
Around the Country, passengers are complaining because
Amtrak's long distance trains often arrive hours late. I
realize that much of this problem is due to heavy congestion on
the freight railroads, but we are hoping that you have some new
ideas to help improve the situation.
Mr. Kummant, I know that you have only been on the job for
a couple of weeks, so I truly appreciate your taking the time
to visit with us this morning. I know that it is probably too
early to ask for a ton of specifics, but I hope that you can
share your vision for Amtrak, as well as your strategy for
achieving that vision. I am looking forward to a most
informative hearing this morning.
Before yielding to Mr. DeFazio, who is subbing for Ms.
Brown this morning, I want to do two things. One, I want to ask
unanimous consent to allow 30 days for Members to revise and
extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional
statements and materials by the witnesses. Without objection,
so ordered.
Secondly, subject to what may or may not happen in the lame
duck session, I think this will be the last hearing of the
Railroad Subcommittee for the 109th Congress. I want to take
this moment to express my appreciation to all of the Members on
both sides of the aisle for working with us in a very
bipartisan manner. I want to thank both the Majority staff and
the Minority staff for the hard work and dedication they put
into not only our hearings, but also all of the other work
before the Subcommittee.
While Mr. DeFazio is the acting Ranking Member, I
specifically want to commend the regular Ranking Member of our
Subcommittee, Corrine Brown of Florida, and indicate that it
has been my great pleasure to work with her over these past two
years. I think that unlike some of the other committees around
here, we have achieved a great deal and we have done it in a
bipartisan fashion. I have appreciated her cooperation.
With that, it is my pleasure to yield to Mr. DeFazio for
any opening remarks he would choose to make.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today and thanks for volunteering to take on a challenging
job.
I am particularly intrigued in looking at your testimony on
page two where you say,"at a time of high oil prices, growing
highway and airport congestion and record rail freight volumes,
problems which beset and constrain our transportation system,
we should be embracing rail and developing it quickly and
responsibly," and you go on from there. I am really pleased to
hear and see that kind of vision. In a recent hearing we had,
and I can't remember which of the transportation subcommittees
it was in, but I was talking about the idea to have essentially
an integrated plan with a least coast approach to all
transportation needs in this Country. And particularly bringing
sort of a western perspective to this issue, rail can often be
the provider of that, not just in a freight sense but also in a
passenger sense. If we can get high speed rail to live up to
its potential, we could be providing that sort of alternative
for folks, more fuel efficient and competitive in terms of
time.
The other thing to think of, I think, as the administrator
of Amtrak, is we are also seeing an aging society and I note
that you say you support long distance travel. I think you may
see some change in passenger preferences and other potential
with a retired generation that has some resources that wants to
travel to say, well, actually I don't have to be across the
Country in six hours very uncomfortably, I would be happy to do
it in a few days, I have the time now, I am retired. So I am
thinking there may be a whole sort of new customer and growing
customer group to look at and some real changes in the
economics and demographics of the long distance travel in
addition to that in the congested corridors.
So I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Kummant, you are our one and only witness this morning.
I want to thank you for coming, and we offer our
congratulations on your new post and wish you well.
Oh, Mr. Mica is here. I am sorry, I didn't see you. It is
my pleasure now to yield to Mr. Mica for an opening set of
remarks.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't miss this opportunity
both to be at the final Amtrak hearing of this session of
Congress and also to be here to welcome Mr. Kummant, wish him
well in his work. Could I be yielded the customary five
minutes?
Mr. LaTourette. Absolutely.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
By reputation, and sometimes we read these blogs and these
commentaries that Mica is an opponent of Amtrak. And I just
want to set the record straight, sir, as you begin your
important work that you couldn't find a stronger advocate of
both long distance and high speed service. Long distance, I
mean a national system, not a half-baked system.
But I think there are several things that we have to do. I
read your statement, and I think what I would like you to do
is, and hopefully when we have our whole new board and working
together that we could do several things. First, I think what
is important is what they have already started out, separating
out the Northeast Corridor. In Congress we have never really
been able to look at all your finances and determine what
things cost and how things are operating.
The Northeast Corridor is very important. It is the only
real hard asset that you have. You have a couple scattered
other assets. But you own that real estate, it has great value.
Separating that out, and then once we do that, is to give
the private sector an opportunity to help build and expand
service there. First of all, Congress is never going to give
Amtrak the $18 billion to $35 billion it needs to develop that
corridor and make it truly high speed. They will not do it.
They will continue to give you the starvation diet of one
point, whatever it is, two billion dollars to subsidize your
work.
Just looking at your figures, with your debt costs, your
maintenance requirements, your backlog, simple math will tell
you you are never going to get ahead of the game in building
that infrastructure. And they also unfortunately don't have
confidence in Amtrak to invest that kind of money in high
speed. So you have to turn to the private sector. Next time I
see you, I am going to ask you if you have met with some of
those people that are willing to invest and take that over.
The next thing is long distance service. I come from a
State where I want more long distance service. You should be
providing it. You need to be looking at giving back to the
private sector with your oversight or however you want to
arrange it, things like AutoTrain, which would take cars and
people off the road. Again, it is not run that well.
Increasing long distance service where it makes sense, and
you can even have some people make money if it is not a Soviet-
style train experience, it is a pleasurable experience. People
do make money moving people by rail in a leisure travel
experience today. And I will be glad to give you examples.
So long distance service, high speed service. The final
thing is, there are a lot of people nervous in the service that
work for Amtrak. They are good people. I think your predecessor
came before us and told us they had slashed from 26,000
employees down to, what do you have, 19,000 now, in that range?
That is not a future. The future is expanding rail service,
both for high speed and long distance. So I urge you to cut a
deal with labor and tell them that we can ensure those people
jobs and opportunities far beyond anything they can imagine if
we expand that.
So my challenge is a little bit of vision, thinking outside
the box, coming back to us with proposals. I think with a good
board in place, with you in place, we can do that. If you want
to be a placeholder, well, then you will be back here asking
for another $1.2 billion, you will be getting the same grilling
and will see us not really entering the age of moving people
long distance or in a high speed fashion.
So I look forward to working with you in that regard and
thank you for taking on this tough test. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentleman for his observations,
and I apologize that I didn't see you sitting over there
earlier. Thank you for your observations.
Mr. Kummant, welcome today and we very much look forward to
hearing from you.
TESTIMONY OF ALEX KUMMANT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMTRAK
Mr. Kummant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
Congressman. Good morning. My name is Alex Kummant. I have been
Amtrak's President and Chief Executive Officer since September
12th. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today.
I intend to keep my statement short to allow you as much
time as possible to ask me questions. But let me start by
telling you a little bit about myself. I was born in Ohio and
was raised both there and in Western Pennsylvania, because my
father worked as an engineer and later as an engineering
manager for U.S. Steel. My dad's work in the steel mills was
one of the reasons why I chose engineering as a vocation and
why most of my professional life has been spent in industrial
settings or in the manufacturing equipment to support heavy
industry.
From 1999 to 2003, I worked for Union Pacific Railroad, and
at the time of my departure was regional vice president for the
central region, central division, overseeing 6,000
transportation, engineering, construction, mechanical and other
employees supporting an 8,000 mile rail network. I was
responsible for customer service, on-time delivery and the
overall financial and operational performance of the region. My
time at the UP left an indelible and abiding interest in the
railroad industry.
Even today I believe that the operations of a railroad
represent one of the most engrossing and challenging
opportunities in terms of a professional career. Therefore, the
opportunity to join Amtrak is more than just another job for
me. It is a chance to get back into an industry that has kept
its hold on me and to advance something I believe in, namely,
passenger railroading.
Amtrak is both a business and a public enterprise. Amtrak
was created by Congress. It relies on funding from Congress. In
many ways you are the company's primary shareholders. In my
view, there are very few large and complex operations that are
so challenging from both a business point of view as well as a
public or political point of view.
Also, I believe we are at a pivotal point in the history of
rail passenger service, particularly in this Country. I am
committed to operating a national system of trains. I believe
long distance trains are an important part of the Nation's
transportation network, and I believe it is our challenge to
run them in the most efficient and effective way.
That said, I understand how important these trains are as a
form of basic transportation to many small communities across
the Nation. My challenge and that of our management team will
be to find the most efficient and effective way to run them.
I also know that the fastest growing service we have is in
rail corridors. Those States that have the vision to develop
their State rail systems are beginning to see the benefits of
that service. In the past few years, the only new services that
Amtrak has added are those that are supported by these States.
Developing these corridors, and by that I mean providing
regular and reliable service between city pairs of 300 to 500
miles, is going to be a major part in the driving force of our
future. I hope that in my time at Amtrak we will continue to
see more corridor growth and the realization of a Federal and
State funding partnership for these corridors.
I am just beginning to understand how much work Amtrak has
done in the last few years in bringing the Northeast Corridor
and some of its branch lines to a much higher level of utility.
The NEC still requires a significant amount of investment,
including large projects such as bridge and tunnel replacement.
But in terms of basic investment, tracks, ties and signals, the
company has used the capital money you have appropriated to
them wisely and strategically to update the Northeast Corridor.
In the coming years, I think we will have to do a better
job of explaining the importance of these capital investments
to you, because this valuable work has durability and
demonstrable benefit. In fact, the work we have done has
allowed us to reduce slightly the Acela service travel time
between New York and Washington by five minutes in our new
timetables.
To me, having been on the outside, I have always wondered
why the Amtrak debate is so emotional and at time, acrimonious.
k It really needn't be, especially now. At a time of high oil
prices, growing highway and airport congestion and record
freight volumes, problems which beset and constrain our
transportation system, we should be embracing rail and
developing it as quickly and as responsibly as we can. We
should get beyond the debate of a few hundred million dollars
of operating costs and begin to realize the potential rail
passenger service has to offer with the right level of
investment and a clearly defined Federal policy.
I know many of you travel back to your district every
weekend because you feel it is the most effective way to keep
in touch with the views of the people you have been elected to
represent. Just like you, I intend to roam around the system. I
will be on trains, in the shops, on the platforms and at the
stations. I find the best ideas oftentimes are the ones given
to you by the ones that are out there doing their jobs every
day. This is something my dad learned when he worked large
engineering projects in steel mills and something he instilled
in me.
In closing, let me assure you that I believe in rail
passenger service and believe in Amtrak. I have a lot to learn,
but I learn quickly. In the coming weeks, I intend to shape and
hone my immediate and near-term goals and objectives, as well
as get around and meet with many of you personally. I encourage
you to offer me your counsel and advice. In that vein, it is my
hope that today begins a long and constructive relationship.
Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you very much for your testimony
and your observations.
I don't know that it is a question, but an observation. I
think one place where Mr. Mica and I agree is, I have been here
12 years, Mr. DeFazio a little bit longer. This notion of
Amtrak sort of limping along every year, Congress has a history
of giving you, giving the corporation just enough money to
fail. We have to devise a way to come out of that.
I would just tell you, I meet with people all the time.
Some have innovative ideas for the Northeast Corridor. Some
would suggest that Amtrak could utilize the RIFF loan program
that we have just authorized in SAFETEA-LU if the corporation
was found to be creditworthy. And I would suggest that maybe an
audit or an evaluation of the assets that haven't been
mortgaged be taken to demonstrate to those that might want to
provide capital to the corporation that there is in fact a
creditworthiness there.
So the one comment that I would agree with is that I do
think we have reached the point where if we are going to have
viable passenger rail service, and Amtrak is a part of it, we
need to think outside the box and not just have this annual
appropriations fight.
I want to begin my questioning though, we had a hearing a
couple of months ago on capacity. The evidence was pretty
clear, as a matter of fact, I just talked to a fellow who
retired from the Union Pacific Railroad after 46 years. He
said, you know, I never thought I would say this as a
railroader, but we are sold out. And we do have a severe
capacity crunch in this Country on the freight railroads, which
you share for some of your service.
My question to you would be, what do you think of how we
can get around improving the on-time performance of Amtrak
trains? One idea that has been floated is that in the airline
industry, for instance, they make account for busy seasons,
weather and things like that by building in cushion time. I
want to ask you if you have had an opportunity to think about
building in cushion time to your schedules, and if not, or if
you have thought about it and you don't think that is a good
idea, what actions you think might help ensure that Amtrak
schedules really come up with the reality of mixing passenger
and freight rails on the same lines?
Mr. Kummant. I think we have to have this debate or
dialogue, clearly, with the context of record volumes on the
freights. In the end, the answer has to be capital of some
sort, from some direction. I think that we need to sit down and
work with the freights on the particularly troubled lanes and
ask them to come up with a plan. At the end of the day, we do
have contracts with the freights. We do need to hold them to
those contracts. But we have to look for ways of funding, and
perhaps there is a way Amtrak can be involved in justifying
capital in key lanes. But the answer is capital.
Relative to padding the schedules, I think you have to look
at schedules seasonally, you have to look at schedules clearly
when there is major overhaul work going on on particular lanes.
You can't ignore that. But there is always the danger then of
creating schedule slippage that you never get back to.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you. Among the other groups that come
to visit me, the Amtrak police have been in to see me on a
pretty regular basis. Here on Capitol Hill we experienced a
number of years ago the sort of notion that the Capitol Hill
Police became the training ground for other law enforcement
agencies, because we weren't keeping up with pay and benefits.
A similar observation has been made by some representatives of
the Amtrak police, and specifically, some have suggested that
the Amtrak railroad police officers be transferred to a
retirement system comparable to that of other Federal and State
law enforcement organizations, as well as looking at their pay
structure.
My question is two-fold. One, are you aware that these are
concerns that have been raised? And second of all, I would just
solicit your opinion on that.
Mr. Kummant. I am certainly aware of the concerns,
particularly on pay structure and on competitiveness. Security,
as we all know, is a significant issue. I am not an expert. I
know we have done a lot of work in the area and a lot more
needs to be done.
We are in a dialogue with the police union and we hope that
is productive. Clearly, that represents, as it does with some
other key skills, we have to be market competitive. Therefore,
we need to drive to getting agreements in place where they are
market competitive. I agree it is an issue and we hope to have
a productive dialogue with the police on that.
Mr. LaTourette. Staying on the labor front for just a
minute, it is my understanding that your two immediate
predecessors didn't meet directly with union officials
concerning safety and security issues. In fact, they instructed
that all such issues be handled by the Amtrak labor relations
department and not your police or safety departments. The
effect of that, in my opinion, has been to cut off any
effective discussion of safety and security issues, including
Operation Red Block, which is a successful program to prevent
employee drug and alcohol abuse.
I happen to think it is important to keep lines of
communication open, especially on safety and security issues. I
want to ask you what your intention is relative to that.
Mr. Kummant. I can't speak to the history. I do know we
actually have front line training programs in place for
security awareness. So I find that categorical statement a
little surprising, but I can't really comment on what went on
in history. I think the whole management team here is committed
to engagement and believes that the front line, and I will say
this about really any issue, be it security or rail operations,
your operation is only as good as your front line and front
line management.
So I certainly am entirely in favor of engagement and
communication.
Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate that. Before I leave the labor
subject, many of Amtrak's unions have not had a new contract in
some up to seven years. If you could share with us your
strategy or what you think your strategy is going to be
regarding negotiation of new labor agreements.
Mr. Kummant. First let me say all of our people need to get
fair pay and they need to be competitive in the marketplace. It
has to be fair to them and it is also a critical strategic
issue for the operation to retain the critical skills we have
in this market. That being said, it is a negotiation, it is a
dialogue. There are flexibility issues, work rule issues that
we absolutely have to work through. It is the foundation that
this entire operation will stand on for the coming years in
terms of our ability to flexibly manage. Our stakeholders in a
sense can't have it both ways, we can't on the one hand say,
you are inefficient, but gee, we don't really want you to push
flexibility issues on labor. So it is a balance we have to
strike, it is a dialogue.
But let me then make a comment relative to style. I am an
across the table, face to face negotiation sort of guy. I don't
believe in back room deals. I think our record is clear and the
agreement that we have had on the table are clear. About 35
percent of our work force has in fact agreed to labor
agreements. So we have had constructive dialogues with at least
a third of the group and there are others going on. But we
absolutely need agreements, I agree with that.
Mr. LaTourette. Before yielding to Mr. DeFazio, just by way
of updating, we had a couple of hearings, we have had a lot of
hearing on Amtrak in the last couple of years, one focused on
food service and the discussion of a contract with Gate
Gourmet. We also had a couple of hearings on the Acela brake
issue. Could you just give us a brief update of where you think
the Gate Gourmet contract is and what is going on with the
Acela train today?
Mr. Kummant. On Gate Gourmet, my basic understanding is
that the new contract is in place. We are seeing year-over-year
improvements on budget from the new contract. If we compare
2006 budget to the 2007 budget for the whole Food and Beverage
initiative, we will reduce costs by $23 million. So I believe
that has been a positive program.
That being said, we still as an entire operation need to
look at our products, need to look at our service profiles.
That really goes into really the question of where do we want
to be in the future. That is what I would like to dive into the
next three or four months. I don't claim to be an expert on
that front.
I apologize, your second question?
Mr. LaTourette. On the Acela trains.
Mr. Kummant. On the Acela trains, the brake issue, my
understanding is, it is behind us and has essentially been
dealt with satisfactorily on the technical front.
Mr. LaTourette. OK, thank you very much. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note the
Ranking Member is here and after I ask my questions, I will
cede back her rightful seat to her.
Mr. Kummant, the track issue right away, dealing with the
Class I railroads is really key. You have experience there.
I'll just give one example. In my State, our Governor has begun
to look at integrating our transportation assets better. He has
something called Connect Oregon. The State is actually
partnering with UP to help build more sidings between Portland
and Eugene, particularly outside of Portland, where there is a
tremendous amount of congestion in that area.
Do you have any ideas? I think this is a critical
nationwide problem, the congestion issue, or actual access for
the Amtrak trains and the delays that results in. The second is
in the Northwest, we have a high speed train set, Talgo. But
the condition of the track, which is the property of the Class
I railroads, is such that we can operate those trains generally
at less than half their potential speed, even when we have
clear track in front of us in terms of no one in front of us.
Do you have any ideas about how we can begin to deal with
that? Because that is the key to making these systems work. The
time becomes their competitive factor. People will take the
alternative, if we could realize the potential of Talgo in the
northwest corridor, Eugene-Seattle or particularly Portland-
Seattle, would be competitive with the commuter airlines when
you look at the time it takes to go through an airport.
Mr. Kummant. Right. I would like to have the dialogue with
the freights to say, where do capital projects help both of our
fluidity, both passenger and freight. Then the question is, how
is the capital generated? Is it from the States? Is there
investment tax credit structure? Is there a Federal matching
program that begins to look, at least in a small way, like the
highway matching program?
At this point, the States have been our answer. They are
our growth. We have seen I believe 13 percent growth in
revenues from State corridor services, which is terrific. And
in the end, I think we have to reach out to the States along
with the freights in a partnership to say, where does the
capital come from. You simply can't escape the fact that the
answer is capital. There is no other magic bullet. Then we
collectively have to come up with a way to generate that
capital in the right places. If you look at the demographics,
if you look at it where the most opportunity is to take people
off the road and to really create useful lanes.
Mr. DeFazio. I had in fact a question from Mr. Costello
that goes to a particular State enhancement. His question, had
he been able to come, would have been the State of Illinois
doubled its operating assistance from $12 million to $24
million. And the acting president, Mr. Hughes, had committed to
ensuring that new services and frequencies would begin in late
October with inaugural trains in mid-October. His question is,
do you support the previous commitments? Are you aware of this
and will that still go forward?
Mr. Kummant. Yes, in fact, I hope to ride on the inaugural
train. So that is a terrific example. I believe we are going
from three to seven trains a day. That is one of the examples
that we would like to emulate in partnership with other States.
Mr. DeFazio. That is great.
Mr. Kummant. My friend here just whispered in my ear
reminding me that in fact we are going to be in Portland here
in the end of the month. I will be taking a look at that, as
well as talking to local people.
Mr. DeFazio. What are you going to be doing in Portland?
Mr. Kummant. We are taking a west coast trip and we will be
meeting with our people in Portland and taking a look at the
infrastructure there.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Many years ago former chair of the
Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, it was Al Swift, I
think he was chair. Anyway, he and I did the original, there
were originally six high speed rail corridors and one of them
was envisioned in the Northwest--of course, everyone wants them
now. Back then it was like who cares. But we did, and we had
this vision from Eugene to British Vancouver. The potential is
there.
But particularly it would be key if you can help bring
along your former employer in terms of showing them how there
is some way it can be jointly beneficial to improve the state
of the rail bed itself. I don't know, at some point I guess you
have to ask the question if we are going to have a real vision
of a high speed system in the future, can it co-exist with the
heavy freights? Can we build or rebuild economically, making
sense to them, Class I track? Do you think that is possible to
both handle the heavy loads and high speed, or does it really
have to be a parallel, separate system?
Mr. Kummant. I think it is possible. I would also point
out, I think there is an awful lot we can do with 80 to 100
mile per hour service, which clearly can run over the same
track. I think it can create tremendous benefits. We don't have
to be running 150 or 180 miles an hour to do that.
So I think there is a middle path to show a way to get
there. The capital is so enormous on true high speed that I
think that may be a barrier. But I think if we look at 300 to
500 mile lanes at 80 to 100 miles an hour, that will look like
a real opportunity to us, I believe.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentleman very much. As Mr.
DeFazio noted, we have been joined by our distinguished Ranking
Member. Ms. Brown, I said really nice things about you before
you got here. Thank you for being here and we recognize you for
any comments you might have and questions.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just
apologize for a minute for running late. I was in a meeting
with Secretary Rice and the Congressional Black Caucus. We were
meeting on the genocide that is going on in Africa. That is
always the challenge, being in Congress, being in one place,
cut yourself in half at the same time.
But first of all, Mr. Chairman, let me open my remarks by
thanking you for your comments and kind words last night on the
floor and I am sure kind words that you have said here today.
It has been a genuine pleasure working with you. You are a
truly fair and inclusive chairman. It has been one of the
highlights of being in Congress for 14 years, working with you.
I am proud of the work that we have done on this Committee and
of our accomplishments. I want to thank you publicly.
I want to thank you, Mr. Kummant, for your appearance
before the Subcommittee today. It was a real pleasure meeting
with you earlier this week and I believe we had a thoughtful
and productive conversation about the future of Amtrak. Thank
you for your time.
I want to welcome you to your first hearing before the
Subcommittee. We have lots and lots of hearings on Amtrak. The
railroad is a key component in our national transportation
system. So you will get to know us well.
I want to offer my congratulations to you on your new job
at Amtrak, but I will be frank with you: I am concerned about
who the Bush Amtrak board will hire to fill Mr. David Gunn's
position. Because those are big shoes to fill. Mr. Gunn spent
his entire career in the passenger rail business and knew it
better than anyone I know and did a tremendous job in leading
Amtrak in the right direction.
But he was fired for doing a good job. He was fired for
disagreeing with the Bush board on how to best run Amtrak. When
the Bush Administration realized it could not get rid of Amtrak
by starving it to death or forcing it into bankruptcy, it tried
to destroy the railroad from within. In September 2005, the
Bush board announced a decision to split Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor from its operation, a decision that Mr. Gunn
absolutely opposed. He thought it was the wrong way to go and
it didn't make sense. But the Bush Administration disagreed,
and that is what got him fired, standing up for the right
thing.
I am glad to say that after much public outcry and an
aggressive response from this Congress, the board has backed
off of this proposal for now. But I am sure that they have not
backed off of their efforts to dismantle Amtrak. I am sure that
you understand the responsibility, your responsibility to
Amtrak, to its work force and to its ridership to see that
Amtrak is successful and the decisions you make regarding
Amtrak's future and its operation are for the betterment of the
company, not for a particular political agenda.
Speaking of the workforce, I am sure you are aware that
many of the Amtrak workers have gone more than seven years
without updated contracts and general wage increase. I would
like to understand what your intentions are to resolve this
situation and to reach a fair settlement with labor. Those
workers are your allies, not your enemies. They have made
sacrifices over the years to help keep Amtrak solvent and they
have walked the halls of Congress meeting with members to
ensure Amtrak continues to receive adequate funding through the
appropriation process. In other words, they help to get your
money. Now it is your turn to help them get theirs. I hope you
will keep them in mind as we move forward.
Once again, I want to thank the Chairman and I will yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTourette. We have now been joined by the
distinguished Ranking Member of the full Committee. Because of
his rank in the Committee, we will ask Mr. Blumenauer to
patient wait for about five minutes. Mr. Oberstar, we are happy
to yield to you for five minutes for any observations or
questions you might have.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need not take a
lot of time, except to welcome Mr. Kummant and to observe that
good words precede his appearance. As you put it in the title
of the hearing, a hand on the throttle. I hope you have spent a
lot of time either in a locomotive yourself or at a locomotive
simulator, learning what it means to have hands on the
throttle. Of course, managing Amtrak means more than just being
in the cab on a train that is rolling on the tracks. It means
understanding the internal and external dynamics of this great
rail passenger service.
It means also understanding its history, how it came to be
in the first place, how the discontinuances of local service
led to the failure of rail passenger operations, handing over
thereof to the Federal Government in 1970 in the creation of
Amtrak. It also means understanding that there is a lack of
understanding in the public and among a great many policy
makers of the structure of Amtrak. It is mis-represented that
Secretary Volpe, whom I knew personally, a very great guy, was
a very great Governor of Massachusetts, he was an excellent
secretary of transportation, but he never did say outright that
Amtrak had to make a profit. He said that it might some time in
the future achieve profitability.
But as all rail passenger systems throughout the world, so
Amtrak had depended on public support. What we need to do is
have a major capital infusion in Amtrak, get its infrastructure
right, get its passenger service right, re-launch this system
and make it work. You have an opportunity, hampered by the
Office of Management and Budget, hampered by the appropriation
process, hampered by policy makers who don't understand the
value of passenger rail service. But within those confines, I
wish you well. We will work with you and help in every way we
can.
Let me just make a final observation. If we in the United
States could resolve, as has been done in Europe, to commit 10
percent, in Europe it is much more than that, but 10 percent of
all passenger movements by transit, we could in this Country
save the equivalent of 550 million barrels of oil a year, and
that is the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. If we do inter-
city passenger rail and transit within cities, and cites to
suburbs and to exurbs, we can do that. And Amtrak can and
should lead the way.
Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Mica, are you ready to ask questions?
Mr. Mica. Yes, if I may.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In reading your statement, I
noticed some improvements in the performance in the Northeast
Corridor with Acela. What is your current, well, probably the
most recent figures you would have on the Northeast Corridor,
the number of passengers that you have?
Mr. Kummant. I will probably have to look that up. I am
afraid, sir, I----
Mr. Mica. For the system, is it 26 million now?
Mr. Kummant. The whole system is 25 million. And Acela is,
I believe, 25 percent of that, 30 percent of that.
Mr. Mica. The Northeast Corridor, though, in total, I
thought was closer to 50 percent.
Mr. Kummant. Maybe the whole corridor, but the Metroliners,
the non-high speed, take care of the balance.
Mr. Mica. Right. Acela was 25 percent and you are doing 22
million passengers?
Mr. Kummant. Twenty-two million for the system, yes.
Mr. Mica. For the whole system?
Mr. Kummant. That is right.
Mr. Mica. And the Northeast Corridor is still about half of
that, is that correct?
Mr. Kummant. Yes, the Northeast Corridor is half.
Mr. Mica. Which is about 11. Again, in my comments in
opening, Mr. Oberstar is right, we need a huge infrastructure
capital infusion. I don't see that happening. I don't see
Congress giving you the money. Now, if you go back and look at
all the different reports we have had, GAO studies, it is going
to cost a very minimum probably, well, if the private sector
did it, maybe $13 billion to $15 billion to truly make the
Northeast Corridor high speed. Given the equipment that you
have now, even with Acela, I am told the design doesn't allow
you to go to what I consider average high speed system.
Are you open to considering looking at having the Northeast
Corridor being both operated and expanded, and its future
expansion financed by the private sector?
Mr. Kummant. First let me say, the only mandate I have been
given by the board is to run a safe and reliable railroad. As
far as everything that has swirled about the Northeast
Corridor, I have to get into those details. Certainly I have
also been approached and sat in on a few sessions where there
were financing options thrown out.
Mr. Mica. You are willing though, to talk to those people
now in your current position?
Mr. Kummant. Yes, sir, I think we have to look at that.
However, let me also say I spent enough time running railroads
that there are tremendous operating challenges with peeling
anything like that off. It is a very complex environment.
Mr. Mica. In fact, though, that is the only real asset that
you own. You have a little piece up by Chicago and I guess a
couple little, small pieces. But your major piece of railroad
that you are running, about 90 percent of your service is over
somebody else's freight tracks, isn't it?
Mr. Kummant. That is the fundamental----
Mr. Mica. So you are not running a railroad. You are
running cars on that railroad for long distance service. You
are in the Northeast Corridor. But see, that service is never
going to get to truly high speed without that investment. And
Congress is never going to give you that money based on the
track record that Amtrak has. You don't make those decisions,
the board does.
Tell me the status of the board. How many people are in
place and confirmed and legitimate?
Mr. Kummant. I am really not here to speak for the board--
--
Mr. Mica. No, but your board members----
Mr. Kummant.--I think we have----
Mr. Mica.--how many board members are in place?
Mr. Kummant. We have two of the current members that I
believe have their terms expire in December and were recess
appointments. The others are, how shall I say, fully in the
saddle. There is one vacancy.
Mr. Mica. So we have the possibility, with one vacancy and
two expiring, of not having a board, a full board in place?
Mr. Kummant. Again, that is up to other people. That could
happen, and I am hardly the person to talk to about the legal
structure of the board, sir.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, that is a concern, because we have
to have a board in place that can make these decisions.
The final thing, and I don't want to take a lot of time, I
will ask you to look at Virgin Rail. I went to look at Virgin
Rail, which acquired the equivalent of the Northeast Corridor
in England. They now have 34 million passengers. They put the
equivalent of 5 billion pounds, which is about $9 billion in
infrastructure, they do run in fact high speed service, 34
million passengers. That is more than we have on our entire
system.
They acquired it in 1997, they have made a profit all of
the last five years and the last three years paid a dividend. I
have asked GAO to confirm those figures. But I would ask you to
look at that. I have talked to some of those people, they would
be interested in coming in and taking over our Northeast
Corridor and operating it and increasing the ridership and
probably dramatically increasing the employment.
So that is one possibility, and I hope you will look at it.
If you won't, I will be over and I will show you all the
details. Thank you.
Mr. Kummant. I understand.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Actually, with the Chair's permission, I
would yield a portion of my time to Mr. Oberstar to give the
rest of the story on the British experience.
Mr. Oberstar. The gentleman from Florida paints only a part
of the picture. In December of 2000, Mr. Shuster, then-chairman
of the Committee and I were in London, met with the British
transport minister and transport committee of the British
Parliament. The night before our meeting, Parliament had voted
a 600 million pound bail-out to the right-of-way owners,
because without that money, to pay the shareholders, the whole
operation was going to go into bankruptcy.
So the notion that the private sector can fund these
operations all on its own and they are possessed of some
wizardry misses the mark.
Mr. Mica. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Oberstar. I of course will yield.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, again----
Mr. Blumenauer. I would like the gentleman to yield on
somebody else's time.
Mr. LaTourette. Yes, the time belongs to Mr. Blumenauer. So
Mr. Blumenauer, if you want to yield to Mr. Mica----
Mr. Blumenauer. Actually, Mr. Mica and I have a perfect
record, in eight years in this Subcommittee, of never agreeing
on anything relating to rail.
Mr. LaTourette. So I take it you are not going to yield.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Blumenauer. So I don't want to subject our new
president to that right now and have him run screaming from the
room.
I do appreciate your being here. I appreciate the tone and
tenor of your statement, because you set, I think, in place for
us the reality that rail has never played a more important part
in our transportation system for the last three-quarters of the
century. You have to go back to World War II, and with the
points you raise about energy pricing, in terms of congestion
on our highways and our airports, you make an important point.
I appreciate the positive way that you have sketched it. I
think it is prob ably unfair for us to bore in on specific
details at this point. And also to sort of coax you to comment
on things that aren't really in your job description anyway.
Let me just say that I am hopeful that we will be able to work
with you and hopefully with your full complement of new board,
with three more people coming on, by the time the new Congress
convenes, to be able to realize this potential that you
describe.
It is quite clear that the American public, despite
attitudes of some people in Congress that that would just as
soon get rid of Amtrak, that the public favors it too strongly
to allow it to die. There is a broad bipartisan reservoir of
support, and there is real potential in the future.
My hope is, and I appreciate what you said in your
statement about getting past a couple hundred million of
operating, more or less. The real issue is one of long-term
capital. It is the relationship with the Class I railroads in
particular and other elements of the transportation system. I
am hopeful that there will be an opportunity, perhaps in a less
formal setting, to be able to explore ways to build on those
opportunities that you see and that Congress can step up to
give a tiny fraction, a tiny fraction of the subsidy that it
gives to road and to air transport, to make sure that your job
is not complicated by failure even for us to spend the money we
authorize.
I appreciate your presence here today. I do have a few more
seconds if you care to comment. But my interest is being able
to build on that vision that you have articulated.
Mr. Kummant. I would just say, as they say in Parliament,
hear, hear. I think it is about capital. And I have lived in
Europe and as a regular, as with rail being part of my regular
life. Certainly we don't have the European densities and we
have the challenge of how we get across the Great Plains and
the mountain States and look at a coherent national network.
But I would not have taken this job if I were not
interested in wrestling with that very question. So that is why
I am here.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would, if I could, just indulge you for 20 more seconds to just
say that we may not have European densities, but we are
planning for a country of 400 million people. And we have
obvious opportunities in passenger rail corridors that are
strangling on congestion on the roadways and airports that are
at capacity. The little question of energy efficiency by any
calculation, you are four times more energy efficient. If we
are successful in double tracking just a little bit more of
this, it is what, 60 feet of right-of-way for 6 feet of rail.
So you have, I think, some raw material here that we can build
upon if we are able to craft that partnership.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kummant, Amtrak currently operates the Virginia Railway
Express. That is a commuter line running south from Washington.
We have been receiving numerous complaints from passengers
about late trains. In fact, I think last week there was one,
the 8:00 o'clock didn't get here until a little after 1:00. And
I know that Congresswoman Joanne Davis of Virginia has written
a letter to you, or to Amtrak, asking you to assign a full-time
manager to oversee this Virginia Railway Express.
I would like to reiterate her request and also ask for any
comments that you might have between this corridor, D.C. and
Richmond. I would also like to add that my wife is an Amtrak
rider from Atlanta to D.C. She voices her complaints to me, not
you all, to let you know that she also has suffered from the
late and canceled trains. Also let me just say this. I know,
and I have ridden the train a couple of times myself, and some
of the cars are old. But there is no excuse for them not being
clean. Old is one thing, clean is another.
So could you just address that, mainly the Richmond-
Washington portion?
Mr. Kummant. Yes. I am just beginning to understand how the
organization is structured. I believe we have a manager
responsible for VRE and MARC, and our senior vice president of
operations I know also received contact and is working through
that issue.
I also believe we just recently, it occurred I think over
the last two weeks, had a meeting with CSX also on that lane.
It really goes to the other dialogue we have had here, it is in
the end about capital, how do we make those lanes more fluid,
are there some options. It is not all just about dispatching.
And clearly on the basic service issues, that is something
we as an organization have to continue to work. But I am aware
of the organizational issue and I believe there is outreach
going back. We will have to take a look at that.
Mr. Westmoreland. Let me just make one other comment as far
as a passenger on there. I would just as soon be strapped to
the front of a roller coaster on some of that track that goes
through there. It is pretty rough. I think we are probably
traveling at 70 or 80 miles an hour. So I agree with Mr. Mica,
high speed would be a tough, tough deal there.
The last question I have is, your inspector general is
completely in your budget. In other words, kind of fox looking
after the henhouse, so to speak. Not that anybody has done
anything wrong or pulled any punches or anything, but do you
think it would be a good idea for your inspector general to
have their own line item in the budget and not be under yours?
Mr. Kummant. I guess I hadn't thought about it in terms of
where the budget lies. I know the accountability actually lies
on multiple lines. So it is hardly a direct report to me. So I
think it is the accountability and lines of management that are
the critical component there. But candidly, I really haven't
thought about the issue, because I know that Fred does not work
for me directly, he reports, I believe, jointly to the board as
well as to oversight committees here. That was what I viewed as
determinative. But I will take a look at it.
Mr. Westmoreland. Well, please do, because a lot of times
you just have to follow the money. That is just a perception
maybe that is out there. But that would be a good idea.
Mr. Kummant. OK, thanks.
Mr. Westmoreland. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Boswell
from Iowa?
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you sir,
for being here with us today. You have a big job, but I think
you know that going in. And it is a big job and I got here
late, so if you have already covered this, just stop me and I
will go to something else. But there are so many things that
you have to deal with, it is hard to know where to start. But
you have to start somewhere. So I think you are obviously
prepared to do that. You have taken on the responsibility, I
guess nobody held a gun to your head, you did it because you
thought you could do something about it. So we wish you the
best.
I appreciate that you will have considerable influence over
policy and business matters on the operation, naturally. But I
would like to know if you have a plan to bring this six-year
collective bargaining stalemate with Amtrak's unionized
workforce to closure, and what kind of a time line would you
envision?
Mr. Kummant. Fair question. I can't address the time line
specifically. Again, first, let me say, we need to have
agreements. We are only as good as our front lines and our
front line management and our morale there. So I am very
supportive of driving it to a conclusion.
Again, that being said, people do need a fair wage. We need
to be competitive in the market. There have been plenty of
offers on the table, and it has to be a dialogue, it has to be
a negotiation. We do need more flexibility in return for higher
wage packages. We have had that constructive dialogue with a
third of the workforce. I believe 35 percent of the workforce
has settled.
So again, I believe in being open across the table. And I
would just say, let's have the conversation, let's get to work.
Mr. Boswell. So you are committed to going forward?
Mr. Kummant. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Boswell. OK. One of the things in my notes here that I
would just like to bring up, which you pretty much addressed,
is due to the lower pay scale offered at Amtrak compared to the
freight railroads and commuter operations, how do you plan to
entice new employees to come and work for Amtrak, and more
importantly, to keep the current ones there?
Mr. Kummant. Again, we need to look at the wage scales. I
think there are, if you look at all the individual categories,
we even have some areas where a few people are paid higher than
other services. But that is a fair observation. I do think, and
one of the reasons why I came back to the railroad, and why the
railroad really stayed with me is, there is a pretty remarkable
feeling for people who are committed to the service, and I
respect that.
I haven't spent a lot of time yet on the trains and in the
shops. But I am impressed with people that walk up to me, even
those that are a bit upset and say, hey, when are we going to
have a settlement. It is a passion and commitment that I
respect. I have seen that in the rail industry, I have seen
that in the freights. You will be out in the middle of Wyoming
and run into a guy who is a third generation railroader. So
there is a continuation there and a passion people do have for
this business, too, at ever level. We want to respect that. I
think that is part of what we offer.
We also offer a terrific benefits package relative to many
industrial companies I have been in. The benefits are very,
very strong. And I think if we can offer that continuity, offer
a vision, I think our job is to make this a great place to
work.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very much. My time is about up. But
I have other things I would like to talk to you about in the
future, of course Amtrak going across the Country crosses my
State, out in the Midwest, in Iowa. We have some very dedicated
travelers who want to go by that, of course, we have all these
shipments of freight back and forth. We have an unbelievable
bottleneck in Chicago, as you know, that is freight. But still,
as you run on their tracks, why, this is tough.
So you have a big job. I hope that we will be able to help
you to move it forward. A lot of us feel a lot of need for the
transportation of people via Amtrak across the Country. I think
everybody understands on the east coast, which I have a lot of
respect for, and the west coast, which I have a lot of respect
for, but you know, we are a United States and we have to
connect together. So that has to be part of it, too. So we will
be looking forward to how things happen. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Boswell. Ms. Carson?
Ms. Carson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much, sir, for being here to help us walk through and
understand the future of Amtrak.
I am Julia Carson, I am from Indianapolis, Indiana. And we
have a big maintenance facility in Beech Grove, which is in my
district. 600 people work there. And I would like to know if
you have any idea what the future of that maintenance facility
is, because rumors have it that you are planning to move it.
Secondly, if you could build a train from Indianapolis to
Washington, D.C., I would appreciate it very much. Because I
like trains, I have been riding them all my life.
Could you tell me what you consider to be, what is valid
about a proposal to close the facility and relocate it, and
what are your thoughts about this issue?
Mr. Kummant. I certainly have not been in the middle of any
conversation of that nature. And I don't believe I am aware of
plans for that to happen. I know that there are always rumors
that swirl. So again, I am just checking back, this is my 16th
day, I think. So I am not aware of any plans and I have not
been involved in any discussions to close Beech Grove.
Ms. Carson. Well, welcome aboard. It is good to have you.
Mr. Kummant. Thank you.
Ms. Carson. I yield back.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentlelady.
Just by way of housekeeping, and thank you for your
patience in answering our questions and I will yield to the
distinguished Ranking Member if she has a follow-up question.
But when I introduced you, I was sort of bragging on your
Cleveland connections, and I didn't hear you talk about any of
that. Can you tell us a little bit about if in fact your first
job was in Lorraine, Ohio and if in fact you did go to Case
Western University?
Mr. Kummant. Sure, I would love to. I always get kicked
under the table if I start talking about Cleveland too much. I
grew up outside of Lorain, Ohio and I swung a sledge hammer
there on a track crew for Lake Terminal Railroad. It was a
track crew near the blast furnaces. And we just maintained the
track. I did a mechanical engineering degree at Case, from 1978
to 1982, and then worked for Sohio before the BP America days
there.
So yes, my roots run there pretty deep. It is tough, but I
am still a hard core Browns and Indians fan.
Mr. LaTourette. Perfect. You are going to do real well in
this job.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much.
Do you have anything else?
Ms. Brown. Yes, sir. First of all, you know I am once again
going to say that I think you are a bright spot in this
Administration and for Amtrak. I am looking for very positive
things. You know that there is a debate in Congress about the
future of Amtrak. But when we go on the board, bipartisan,
Democrats and Republican, House and Senate, we support it. We
understand it. I think we are very close to the people. And so
there is some support. And there are some issues.
I guess what I would like, based on your background with
Union Pacific, there was some discussion about traveling. Those
are CSX tracks that they are traveling over. So can you tell me
how you plan to work with the freights to make things better
for the passengers? Because they think those are your tracks.
Mr. Kummant. That is right. Part of that clearly is
communication. But in the end, as we were chatting earlier, it
is about capital and it is looking for win-win situations, to
say, can we put money in that helps Amtrak but also helps your
fluidity. In some cases, it might also be trying to expedite
some of the slow order work. The railroads go through phases
where they have to catch up. If we can really articulate to
them where our most painful places are to say, look, let's
really try to shift capital here for a while. Because in some
cases, it is not exclusively true, but obviously we are much
more time driven hour to hour than the freights are relative to
their type of service.
So I think it is sitting down and rolling up our sleeves
and really going through our corridors on a mile by mile basis,
saying, what can we do here. This is no easy answer, it is just
getting to work.
Ms. Brown. And I think Members of Congress should
understand that there are problems with Amtrak, maybe in
cleanliness, but I have the same problem in the airport, I am
in there twice a week. So I think everybody--and we give them
billions of dollars. At least it could be a pleasant
environment after I go through the search.
One of the things that I am very concerned about is
security. I mention that to you, when we had Madrid and we had
the London thing, within three days they knew exactly what
happened. I don't think we have the capacity, and I think it is
a failure with the Bush Administration and this Congress not
putting the money into security. That is a big job that you
have to secure the traveling public. I mean, we don't have to
wait for a disaster. We know that it is out there. So I would
be interested in thinking out of the pocket as to what you are
going to do in this area.
The other thing I want to just mention is diversity. I
understand that there is some recommendation to get rid of
minorities and women and I would have a real concern about
that.
Mr. Kummant. If you don't mind, I will take the second one
first. We are absolutely committed to diversity and furthering
diversity in our organization. I hope to lay any concern to
rest there. In today's environment, we have to get all the best
people in the workforce across the Nation, regardless of where
they come from or who they are. I hope I can put that to bed
very quickly as a concern.
Security, absolutely, and I am not a security expert, that
is where I have to do some of my most learning. I understand
that there is a fair amount of work that has been done in the
background, but yes, we are an open architecture type of
environment. We have multiple stops. It is a challenge. There
are good people looking at it. I can't comment necessarily on
historical funding, but rest assured it is something that is
number one on our list in terms of understanding where we have
to go, no question.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I think that answers all of my
questions except Katrina. When we had the devastation in New
Orleans, I think I mentioned that to you in the office, CSX,
they were up and operational not only in Louisiana, but they
were up and operating in Mississippi with days, and the Federal
Government seemed to have failed as far as putting bridges up
and getting their rail back up. It seems like from Florida to
Louisiana, I would like to know what is the status of that
line. Because people have been raising that issue with me.
Mr. Kummant. Fair question. We in fact are meeting with the
Southern Rapid Rail Transmit Commission tomorrow, I believe,
Friday. We are meeting and really, we have to come up with
relevant, reliable service. Even the service on the eastern
portion of the Sunset was three times a week, it was at night.
I know that a number of the stations have yet to be rebuilt. So
there are some challenges there, but we are reaching out to the
States and we need to work through that.
Ms. Brown. Well, once again I want to welcome you and you
are going to have some great partners here in Congress, because
we really support Amtrak. The bottom line is when we go on the
floor, it is a very bipartisan support for the men and women
that travel the system.
Thank you.
Mr. Kummant. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentlelady. I want to thank all
the Members who participated in today's hearing. Mr. Kummant, I
want to thank you. I think when we met, I told you nothing bad
would happen to you today, and nothing bad did. We look forward
to working with you in the future, and if there is no further
business----
Ms. Carson. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LaTourette. Ms. Carson, do you have another question?
Ms. Carson. I do, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Do you anticipate any layoffs, transfers or contracting out
jobs or cutting jobs?
Mr. Kummant. No. Any approach that we are looking at is
entirely through attrition, ma'am.
Ms. Carson. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank the gentlelady.
You go with our thanks, and no further business to come
before the Subcommittee, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]