[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GETTING BACK ON TRACK: A REVIEW OF
AMTRAK'S STRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION
=======================================================================
(112-110)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 28, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-977 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
BILLY LONG, Missouri TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York LAURA RICHARDSON, California
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
VACANCY
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak 10
Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General. 10
James A. Stem, Jr., National Legislative Director of the
Transportation Division, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation
Union (United Transportation Union)............................ 10
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida................................... 32
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas............................. 35
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Joseph H. Boardman............................................... 36
Ted Alves........................................................ 94
James A. Stem, Jr................................................ 112
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, reference to a slide entitled, ``Cross-Modal
Comparison of Federal Subsidies''.............................. 4
Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Amtrak:
Responses to questions from Republican members of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure............. 45
Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida....... 64
Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General,
responses to questions from Republican members of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure........................... 108
James A. Stem, Jr., National Legislative Director of the
Transportation Division, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation
Union (United Transportation Union), responses to questions
from Hon. Corrine Brown........................................ 116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.008
GETTING BACK ON TRACK:
A REVIEW OF AMTRAK'S
STRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this hearing
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to
order. We are pleased to conduct this full committee hearing on
Amtrak, and the title of today's hearing is ``Getting Back on
Track: A Review of Amtrak's Structural Reorganization.''
So welcome. We have one panel of witnesses today, and the
order of business will be that I will start with an opening
statement, provide some background, and will yield to Mr.
Cummings this morning, and other Members who wish to be heard,
and then we will turn to our witnesses. We will hear from all
of them, then go to questions. But pleased to welcome, again,
everyone this morning.
Now, this is one of a number we have actually held, fourth
in a series of full committee oversight hearings on Amtrak and
U.S. passenger rail policy in the United States. We actually
have two more scheduled. One will be on Thursday, December 6th,
and that will focus on the high-speed and intercity passenger
rail grant program, and then we will have the final hearing on
this important subject, Thursday, the 13th of December, and
that will be on the Northeast Corridor.
Ironically, yesterday I was back in New York City actually
looking at some of the flood and storm damage, and many of the
transportation infrastructure facilities were adversely
impacted, a huge amount of damage. I have to say how incredible
New York City is, how resilient its people are, and how well
they are coming back. I think they have got about 95 percent of
their transit operations. Rail was particularly hit. Almost all
of the East Side Lower Manhattan tunnels flooded, and just
think of the massive effort put forward to get those trains
running. They probably move about 20 percent of all the
passengers in the world in New York City, and a hit like that
was incredible, but I understand Mayor Bloomberg, who we met
with yesterday, will be in town today, and we had discussions
yesterday about FEMA, which our committee oversees, and also
transportation infrastructure that was hurt. That may be the
subject of additional scrutiny by the committee.
But today, again, we are focused on looking particularly at
Amtrak's structural organization, and I might also recall that
with the last hearing that we will be doing on the Northeast
Corridor, our very first hearing was on January 27, 2011, when
I became chair of the full committee. We did that in Grand
Central Terminal, where we focused on the future of high-speed
rail in the Northeast Corridor, and our last hearing on
December 13th will focus on that same issue and the progress we
have made since that hearing.
It is kind of interesting how you come about choosing
topics for some of these hearings, and I have to reflect a
moment. A lot of people when they go home, maybe they go to
bed, maybe they count sheep or read a novel. I like to tuck
copies of different trade publications at my bedside, and I was
reading, it had to be after August because this is August 2012,
Progressive Railroading had a great article which featured--
well, the title is ``At Long Last, A Longer View,'' and it
focuses primarily on passenger rail service and Amtrak, and I
thought it was quite interesting, particularly quite
interesting because it outlined some of the work that Amtrak
had been doing regarding its reorganization, its structural
management, and responding to some of the previous studies that
called for more accountability, more responsibility in the way
Amtrak is structured, and that led me to say we really need--
the committee really needed to look at where we are in this
whole process and where we have been.
For just a minute to tell you where we have been, we have
had a GAO study in 2005 that asked for Amtrak to develop a
strategic plan that could clearly link the organization's
management to overall corporate goals, and Amtrak is a
corporation. I was intrigued by a comment that Joe Boardman,
who is the president and CEO, made in this article when he
pledged in the article, and I take his quote from the article,
``to run this company more as a business and less as a
Government entity.'' A quite inspiring goal and something we
have been trying to achieve from this committee. So he set some
of the bar. And again, back to 2005 reviews of Amtrak have
called for improvement again in its organization and management
strategy.
In 2010, the IG of Amtrak released another report, and as a
result of that 2010 report, in November of 2011, Amtrak
released their 5-year strategic plan with corporate goals and
new organization structure, you know, targets that they intend
to use to create more transparency and accountability. And that
is what we will focus a great deal on today is where they are
in that process, how they have come along. We will hear from
the head of Amtrak, Mr. Boardman, we will hear from the
inspector general, and we will also hear from a representative
of workers and labor and see how they assess that progress.
The plan, the strategic plan that is now underway,
hopefully we will hear to be fully implemented by next year, we
will get an exact update again from Mr. Boardman and others.
The plan that was devised takes Amtrak and organizes it into
six business lines, a vice president or manager of business,
and we will see how that has come to pass and how that
reorganization is proceeding, and the purpose of that is to
establish performance goals that are outlined in the strategic
plan so that profits and losses can be addressed and also
accounted for.
In the past, Amtrak managers have not, unfortunately, been
held accountable for what has happened in their departments,
and that is not my evaluation, it is the evaluation of several
of these studies. Also in the past, there have been Amtrak-
attempted reorganizations without clear goals unfortunately. I
hope to better understand Amtrak's strategic plans, its
corporate goals, and specific progress on its reorganization,
and also learn how it will improve performance, accountability,
and cost savings.
I approach this hearing with a very open mind. Amtrak's
strategic plan is very important. I know it requires a
transformative approach from what they have done in the past.
It is not just rearranging the chairs on the deck of the
Titanic. We want to make certain that there is positive
progress.
From a fiscal standpoint, and everybody is focused on the
fiscal cliff, and sometimes people give me a hard time for
focusing on Amtrak, but we have this past year, put $1.4
billion into Amtrak in Government subsidies, almost half a
billion in operating subsidies and close to a billion on some
of the capital improvements, and over the years that commitment
has remained pretty much the same, so we do have a
responsibility with taxpayer dollars to make certain that this
operation, which is highly subsidized, and we did do a hearing
on that, I guess one of the past four hearings we did. Maybe
they could put that up on the board, is the Cross-Modal
Comparison of Federal Subsidies. Rode Amtrak yesterday, the
average cost of my ticket coming back from New York,
Government-subsidized, the average cost of $46.33.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 76977.009
Fortunately, and I read through the report pretty
carefully, Amtrak has made some progress in Acela so the loss
isn't that great for Acela, but this is the average ticket
subsidy, simply by taking the 29 million passengers or 28 if it
was last year and dividing it by the underwriting subsidy.
Other modes of city buses, 10 cents; mass transit, 95 cents;
aviation, $4.28, and that was highlighted in a hearing that
we--a previous hearing that we did. So we are trying to bring
that subsidization for the system down.
Let me say in closing, I went through the inspector
general's report last night, and I do want to hear at least the
report that he is giving, and I am not sure how much of this he
will address, but seven of the nine board members in PRIIA, we
had some reorganization of the board of directors, but we now
have seven of the nine board members on board. I also want to
know about key personnel. We talked about hiring vice
presidents and managers over some of these sectors, and that is
mentioned in the inspector general's report.
Finally, the comment that the inspector general made that
the company is clearly in the early stages of implementing many
of these restructuring initiatives, and he further said that
recent work shows the sustaining and effectively implementing
these initiatives has the potential to significantly reduce
Amtrak's reliance on Federal support, and that is the goal of
this, it is not just to beat up Amtrak, although sometimes we
do become very harsh critics when money is lost, or we see lack
of progress in some areas, but our goal is to reduce the
Federal reliance on Federal support, and that is one of the
objectives of this hearing in addition to finding the specifics
on the progress of their structural organization and
reorganization.
I will introduce our witnesses shortly, but let me yield to
Mr. Cummings, who is serving as ranking member at this point.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is
certainly my pleasure to be here. I want to thank you for
calling this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, quite often our Federal employees are unseen,
unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded. In my capacity as
the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, I have heard so much criticism of our Federal
employees and Government employees in general, and I want to
take a moment here before I even start to thank Joyce Rose for
her 25 years of public service on behalf of this committee and
on behalf of this side of the aisle, and I know all of us feel
this way.
[Applause.]
Mr. Cummings. This is Joyce's, more than likely her last,
it is her last hearing, and she has always worked fairly with
all of our Members, and with our staff on this side, she has
done everything in her power to make sure that not only that
the Congress is served well, but that the country is served
well, and so we hate to lose her, but we know, as someone said
to me, Joyce, and I listened to this in a sermon by T.D. Jakes
not too long ago, he said his son came to him, his son is a
singer, and he was about to go off to college, and his son
said, Daddy, you know, I am not sure this is the thing for me,
you know. Singers may not make a lot of money, it may not be
the right thing for me. And his father went up to him, and he
said, Son, if it is not the thing, it is the thing that will
lead you to the thing.
And so this has been, this Transportation Committee has
been a part of your journey, and we hope that it has been one
that has been most meaningful, and we really thank God for
allowing your destiny to lead you to us and for our destiny to
lead us to you. And so we wish you well in your new endeavors
as the president, that is quite a--I mean, you went from staff
person to president--of Operation Lifesaver, which has the
important mission of educating the public on grade crossing
safety. May God bless you, and thank you so much for your
service.
Mr. Mica. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cummings. Of course.
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. If the gentleman will yield for just a second.
Mr. Cummings. Of course, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Again, there is probably no higher tribute than
to have the other side of the aisle lead with the praise of
your service to the committee, to the Congress, and to the
country. Mr. Cummings and I know that you cannot be successful
in our position without great staff, and certainly you have
worked long and hard, 12 years for the committee, 25 years in
Congress, a quarter of a century of commitment to public
service. I don't think there is anyone that deals with the rail
or transit issues in the Nation that doesn't know of Joyce Rose
and her commitment to helping everyone.
We hadn't passed a passenger rail reauthorization in 11
years, I was the ranking member, and Joyce worked with myself,
Mr. Oberstar, and we had great cooperation from both sides of
the aisle, we passed the legislation called PRIIA, Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, for passenger
rail, which is right now the guideline we go by in the
authorization, but if it wasn't for her dedication, commitment,
and incredible knowledge--I just think of the knowledge that
will be lost when she leaves her position--we couldn't have
achieved that.
So, Joyce, on behalf of the majority side, which we have
had the privilege to have you working with us, and again, from
Mr. Cummings and the minority side, we are just eternally
grateful, and we are paying a little special tribute to you
today, and thanks again for your service. God bless you.
Ms. Rose. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Cummings, thank you for yielding.
Mr. Cummings. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling
today's hearing. Following the release in 2005 by the GAO of a
report entitled Amtrak Management Systemic Problems Require
Actions to Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and
Accountability, that was the name of the report, I was asked by
then-Ranking Member Oberstar to serve as the lead Democrat on a
special working group convened by this committee to evaluate
that report's findings and make recommendations on subsequent
action.
Certainly, Amtrak was facing challenges at that time, but
among other observations, the Democratic Members of the working
group noted in our view that Amtrak ``faces difficulties in
implementing long-range strategic plans because of great
uncertainty regarding its Federal funding each year.''
During that era, Amtrak faced repeated proposals to cut or
eliminate the Federal funding provided to it. Obviously, that
made it difficult for Amtrak's leadership to focus solely on
operating the company or on developing long-term goals and
performance benchmarks. We hear a lot in the Congress about
uncertainty. So subsequently under Chairman Oberstar's
leadership, Congress enacted the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act, and recommitted to the value of the service
Amtrak provides. This commitment was expanded by President
Obama and the Congress through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, which provided funding to begin many of the
capital projects that had been tabled due to years of
inadequate Federal funding.
It is clear that the investments we have made in Amtrak are
supported by the traveling public. Fiscal year 2012 Amtrak
achieved the highest ridership levels in its history. That is
major news. Major. More than 31 million passengers took Amtrak
in this fiscal year, and the service appears poised to continue
to grow.
Against this record of success, and my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle believe Amtrak needs to get back on
track, as the title of this hearing suggests, it is only
because they have once again been doing all they could do to
try to derail the service. In fact, the Republican Presidential
platform called explicitly for Amtrak's elimination.
Fortunately, that misguided platform was resoundingly
rejected by the American people, who have instead supported the
President's call to move forward by implementing policies that
will expand investments in our Nation and support our continued
economic recovery. The assault on Amtrak needs to end so that
this company can stay on track and focus on its core mission of
serving our Nation's mobility needs as safely, securely, and
efficiently as possible.
I am very encouraged by the actions Mr. Boardman has taken
to develop a strategic plan and to introduce an organizational
structure that supports implementation of that plan and
increases accountability at all levels of the organization. I
might note that when the chairman was talking about subsidies,
Mr. Boardman, I don't think it included Amtrak's commuter rail
passengers. The actual subsidy is about $5 per passenger.
I would ask that in your opening statement, you address
that so we will be clear on what that subsidy is. I don't want
any confusion about that because I don't want people watching
this to think that it is something that it is not.
That said, while we must conduct a thorough oversight over
Amtrak as the overall entities receiving Federal funding, our
committee has now held seven hearings at the full and
subcommittee levels in the 112th Congress on Amtrak, and today,
we are convening to examine a strategic plan that has not even
been fully implemented. Appropriate oversight does not require
micromanagement of all fashions of an entity's operations.
Thus, while I look forward to the testimony of today's
witnesses, I hope we will use this hearing to identify ways we
can support the continued success of Amtrak, enable it to grow
to meet the increased passenger demands.
We should also seek ways to support continued
implementation of the reforms Mr. Boardman has proposed, and
give him and his leadership team the space they need to fully
implement their plans rather than require them to return to the
Hill every few weeks.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I want to
thank you for yielding.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman. Are there others who--anyone
on this side? Ms. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. She was first.
Mr. Mica. OK, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. First of all, I would like to thank
Chairman Mica and Ranking Members Brown and Cummings for
holding this hearing today which focuses on Amtrak's structural
reorganization. It is noted that Amtrak has a record of 30.2
million passengers traveling on Amtrak in full year 2011, and
with that, more than 300 daily trains that connect 46 States,
including the District of Columbia and Canada, and additionally
operates intercity trains in partnership with 15 States and
contracts with 13 commuter rail agencies to provide a variety
of services.
At times, this committee has been critical on the way
Amtrak operates trains across this great country, but if Amtrak
were truly as bad as some of the hearings have suggested, we
would have seen headlines like, ``Amtrak Has Record Low
Ridership.'' In fact, that is completely the opposite. Instead,
Amtrak's ridership is booming this year, with 11 consecutive
monthly ridership records. In each month of this current fiscal
year, Amtrak has posted the highest ridership total ever for
that particular month, with the final month of September also
expected to be a new record. In addition, in July was the
single best ridership month in the history of Amtrak.
Unfortunately, the recently passed transportation
reauthorization bill, MAP-21, rail title was noticeably absent
in its final form despite many of our efforts here on this
committee. The suggestion before this committee is that no
Federal funds to Amtrak would be allowed to pursue any legal
action in court, a 25 percent cut in funding, and even more
alarming, not having a vision for high-speed rail network.
These possible legislative actions are detrimental to the
transportation opportunities for all Americans. The alternative
to build more roads, buy more cars, and consume more oil should
not be our only solution. In fact, according to DOT, in
comparison, in 1958 through 2012 the United States has invested
$1.4 trillion in our Nation's highways, $538 billion in
aviation, $266 billion in transit, and yet Amtrak, which was
created in 1971, has received a small fraction of that funding
at $41 billion.
When you consider that and compare it to the oil and gas
industry, which has received roughly $41 billion in Federal
subsidies, or more than half of those subsidies have been
available to the energy sector. We have spent, to bring that
together, we spent more in 1 year with the oil and gas and
energy companies in their industry than we have spent in the
entire life of the program of Amtrak. Clearly there seems to be
an imbalance, and it is not one that should be continued.
Regarding the vision of high-speed rail, the Amtrak Acela
service is one of those alternatives, and though it may only
achieve the speeds of an average of 83 miles per hour along the
NEC, surely that is significantly better than the long delays
and crawling major interstate systems that we have. This
committee should continue the role, as it always has, to
facilitate the development of critical infrastructure and the
continuation of one of America's greatest assets, and that is
passenger rail.
I want to thank all of the witnesses before the committee
today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony about how
the reorganization of Amtrak can make it an even greater
service to the American public. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentlelady. Recognize Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and may I
associate myself with the remarks from Ms. Richardson, but I
especially want to thank Congresswoman Ranking Member Brown and
Elijah Cummings for bringing this issue along with you.
Amtrak is extremely important to California. We have three
of the top five busiest corridors are in our California area.
Two of them are supported totally by the State, but Pacific
Surfliner, 2.8 million, is not. I see that there are some cuts
coming through, and I am going to be looking at that very
closely because it has a 2.8 million ridership. All three are
State-supported services program, and as has been stated, the
vitality must be supported for the State-supported services
program. Same advice to the States to work with Amtrak to
provide passenger rail service that complements the national
network. It is important to all States, especially California,
we are a donor State, because it gives more options to
commuters and many intercity travelers while reducing highway
congestion and pollution. California has been at the forefront
of reduction of pollution in cars and several other areas, and
we continue to look for ways to be able to get people out of
cars and into public transportation.
The California Transportation Commission, they are voicing
their opinion on--I talked to Transportation Secretary Brian
Kelly, Deputy Secretary Brian Annis, and rail division manager
Bill Bronte on how they view Amtrak's work with California and
Caltrans. They are concerned with the changes to the State-
supported services program in section 209 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act, the PRIIA, because that forces
the State of California to pay $20 million that are going to be
taken out of that budget for them, operating losses on that
Pacific Surfliner. It runs along the border of my area, which
right now is the Alameda Corridor East that is the train
transportation that brings in 40 to 50 percent of the Nation's
goods to the rest of the Nation. We are watching the
reorganization of Amtrak, making sure it doesn't hinder any
State partnerships. These are critical because they are the
ones who will, in the end, work with the local communities to
ensure that we get more people to utilize it.
We are pleased that the reorg has created an executive
level position of general manager. I look forward to meeting
that individual and working with him. It is a very positive
step since the States provide 50 percent of the revenues to
Amtrak. We must have a senior Amtrak level position to work
with States on their programs, and this is especially
important, section 209 of PRIIA negatively impacts States,
especially in California.
I also wanted to add my 2 cents to Ranking Member Elijah
Cummings' statement on the employees who run Amtrak. They have
done a beautiful job. I hope they will continue, and we will
continue to work with them to ensure that not only do they
provide good service, but that they also are recognized for the
work they do for our ridership.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
thank the chair.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentlelady. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and Ranking Member. My remarks will be very brief. In October
2005, GAO issued a report to then-Chairman Young concerning
Amtrak's lack of a strategic plan, and the report identified
that without a comprehensive corporate mission, Amtrak's
business practices were lacking and could not ensure consistent
and improved corporate performance.
In August of 2010, the Amtrak Inspector General's Office
released an evaluation report of Amtrak's strategic planning
and set forth key elements necessary for an effective strategic
planning process. The IG's report formed the basis for Amtrak's
November 2011 strategic plan for fiscal year 2011 to 2015.
While the reorganization is not yet fully complete, there
appears to be significant performance and accountability
improvements, and I look forward to the testimony. It seems to
me that they are doing exactly as we have desired. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady. Others seek recognition?
If not, what we will do is turn now to our three witnesses and
welcome them again. Our first witness, and I will recognize him
at this time, is the president and CEO of Amtrak, Mr. Joe
Boardman. Thank you. Welcome, and you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMTRAK; TED ALVES, INSPECTOR GENERAL, AMTRAK OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL; AND JAMES A. STEM, JR., NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, SHEET METAL, AIR,
RAIL, TRANSPORTATION UNION (UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION)
Mr. Boardman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings,
Members. I appreciate being here today, and Joyce, I will be on
your board, so the questions will come from me for the future
for OLI, but I am glad that you are there. You will bring the
energy to a very important problem of safety for railroads, and
I appreciate the work that you have done here.
Angela Cotey, who is sitting over in the corner, Mr.
Chairman, who is the one who wrote that article, and I have
already blamed her for this hearing this morning. She has
already asked me for another interview, and I understand now no
good deed goes unpunished in this process.
What I would like to really start with and talk about this
morning is that I have been an Amtrak customer as a State
Commissioner of Transportation, and even before that, and I was
thinking about this in my own company. I used Amtrak as the
backbone of what we provided in transportation to the social
service agencies where we had contracts because part of the
high cost for social service agencies was to transport,
especially a long distance. For example, in New York, from the
central part of the State to Buffalo to the Cancer Center,
instead of using an ambulance or a very high cost, we would
transfer people to Amtrak at Utica or Rome or Syracuse in some
way to get to the Buffalo center. And so Amtrak was, right to
begin with, the answer to part of the reduction in cost savings
that the Federal Government is interested in, and the State
governments are interested in across the country and also
contributes, then, to Amtrak's revenue as a result of that.
So as a customer, I am focused on customers, and what is it
that a customer really needs to ride Amtrak or any other
service for the future? And so when you look at a
transformation of a major corporation, which Amtrak is, you
really had to spend a lot more time in the diagnosis than you
did in the execution.
So what you saw for the first year or two was looking at
Amtrak as an organization first, how do they do their jobs and
should they be done differently for the future? And what you
found was in a lot of the past reorganizations a lot of box
moving in the organizations, but not a lot of understanding of
what the women and men at Amtrak really accomplished to deliver
the services that we were really looking for.
So some things were good and some weren't, but now we have
some results of what we are doing, and we have made some of
these changes on an incremental basis as we have gone along.
For example, we knew that a foundation of this had to be why
the heck didn't Amtrak have any labor contract agreements for
over 8 years, and why did we have that kind of a culture at
Amtrak?
My perspective was that you needed to bring that group of
people together in a very different way for the future. So the
reorganization began almost immediately in terms of
understanding the strength of this agency was in its men and
women, the work that they did and how they worked with us or
with management or not with management, and you needed a way to
get in there, and the common thread of what a customer wants
and what an employer wants and what an employee wants is
safety. And so we went in under the basis of a Safe-2-Safer
program, which was a different way of looking at safety than
the railroad industry had looked at generally in the past, and
the way I have learned about that was from Federal employees.
Those Federal employees were part of the Federal Railroad
Administration, and they saw that the level of safety got to a
certain place and didn't go any lower. We had to change the way
we were looking at safety. There has been that recognition,
just in the past year by the freight industry as well. It is
different than the structure of today, based on awards for
safety, because what we really need is a behavioral-based
safety program, which is what Amtrak now has in Safe-2-Safer.
But it also brought together people to work in collaboration to
resolve problems. You couldn't resolve problems in Amtrak
without that kind of collaboration with the women and men that
did that work.
Amtrak recorded its ninth ridership record in the last 10
years, and we have actually reduced our operating subsidy. And
there is a difference in our view of operating subsidy and
capital subsidy, because Amtrak, in its first iteration in
1971, was taking over the money-losing passenger railroad
system from the private freight industry. It did not include
the Northeast Corridor then. It only included the long-distance
trains across this Nation, and Congress contemplated, as did
the Executive side at that time, that subsidies would be
needed, although they expected that there would be some way
that a profit would be made. The freight railroads were
relieved of a great responsibility, but it wasn't until 1976
that you really got the Northeast Corridor and you had a
different structure at that point in time.
And, Mr. Cummings, to address what you asked early on, when
you really look at operating assistance, we cover 79 percent of
our fare box in the company as a whole, but on the Northeast
Corridor, we cover more than 100 percent of our operating
costs. We use part of that revenue to go back to subsidize the
long-distance trains because we know that the long-distance
trains are an integral part of our network of mobility across
this country.
So, in fact, there is not a subsidy to a passenger on the
Amtrak corridor except when you add capital assistance. I
understand that the need for capital assistance is so great on
the Northeast Corridor that that subsidy need will continue for
a long time. This was recently exposed in the storm Sandy,
where we lost one of our substations because we didn't make the
investment, we as a Nation, as a region didn't make the
investment to make sure that the water didn't come into that
substation and end the ability for us to have the full level of
service into the Penn Station in New York City. The tunnel
flood gates were so old, and were scheduled to be addressed as
a part of the ARC program and are now scheduled to be done as
part of the Gateway program. That is a discussion that this
body needs to have for the future about how do we make those
investments in infrastructure, and I am hearing that today in
many areas.
So, really, a subsidized operating cost is really about the
long-distance trains, where the business model doesn't work at
the same level of service that there is along the Northeast
Corridor, and the need to connect that service.
But we had to be careful coming in to reorganize Amtrak.
You had to find out, and whether it was the GAO report or
whether it was the IG report, we followed the IG structure in
terms of developing a strategic plan. There is no question
about that. And I think that Mr. Alves will say that in this
process, and when we did that, we knew other elements of this
had to occur as the GAO pointed out in its metrics.
One of the things that I feel that I brought to this
process related to most of my career, going into failing bus
systems and bringing them back, and delivering a different
structure across the country for passenger transportation.
While rail is a little bit different, it is still very similar
in many ways. It is not about the boxes. It is about
understanding what it is that we have to get done and then
making sure that we are able to measure, have goals, that they
are clear, and that we can measure them to see if they are
successful.
Broadly, we see that in ridership. Broadly, we see that in
reducing Federal funds. But our goals need to be much more
specific so that we can hold ourselves accountable and our
employees accountable for what needs to be done to improve
service to the customer because the customer is the major focus
of what this company needs to be all about. It is not about
moving trains. It is about moving people, and that is the
foundation, and the people that you move have to be people that
feel that they are fairly dealt with within the company.
So the foundation of what that is about in our
reorganization is a commitment to the values, the integrity,
the spirit of service, the desire to improve respect,
entrepreneurial spirit, humility, knowing that while we have
heroic acts, we don't have heroes. We need everybody, woman and
man, to deliver what we are really looking for. It isn't about
the CEO, it isn't about the union leader. It is about all that
work in a collaborative fashion. And then we finally need--not
finally, but perhaps sometimes first of all--forgiveness in the
process. Because what you are looking for are people making
decisions, and they have to make them every single day, and
sometimes they don't make the right one, and they need to be
forgiven when they have done it in the best way that they can
and then learn from that for the future, and that is what we
look for is that learning. I don't have a time clock here in
front of me, it is not working.
Mr. Mica. We gave you double so far.
Mr. Boardman. So I can step back and answer questions for
the future. We do have a strategic plan. We do have an
organizational process. It is different than it was in the
past. It is a matrix organization rather than a siloed
organization, and it isn't complete. In some ways, as I
listened to folks, I said it is never going to be completely
complete because things change.
For example, I am not so sure right this minute that we
will hire a general manager of commuter services, because our
commuter service has gone down. That has been the subject of a
previous hearing. That may not be the best way to deliver that
service for the future. We may rethink that, and that is one
position we have not filled at this time. We have filled the
general manager for long-distance, we have filled the general
manager for the Northeast, we have filled the general manager
for State-supported services, and I will stop, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We will get back to you on questions. You have covered a
wide range of what we are interested in hearing about, but we
will turn now to the inspector general, Mr. Alves. You are
welcome, and the inspector general of Amtrak, it is good to
have you here and back again. Thank you.
Mr. Alves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Mica, Mr. Cummings, and members of the committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss how our reports have supported or
complemented Amtrak's ongoing efforts to operate more
effectively by focusing on customers and the bottom line. In
line with the hearing's focus on Amtrak's ongoing
reorganization, my testimony will center on reports related to
improving Amtrak's operational and financial performance.
Before I address those reports, I would like to highlight
the fact that our work generally supports ongoing Amtrak
improvement initiatives. Over the last couple of years both the
board of directors and Amtrak management have been focused on
improving Amtrak's operational, financial, and customer service
performance.
To illustrate, because the board now has seven of the nine
members authorized by PRIIA, it has been able to reconstitute
two important board committees, the audit and finance committee
and the personnel committee. This has helped the board to
provide stronger oversight of management activities. Similarly,
Amtrak management has taken key actions, including issuing a
strategic plan that meets best practice guidelines and provides
a roadmap to help Amtrak become more focused on customers and
the bottom line. The reorganization initiative that is the
focus of today's hearing is directly linked to the strategic
plan's commitment to organize around lines of business.
Turning to our reports, generally, Amtrak has taken
positive action on our recommendations. For example, our August
2010 report found that although Amtrak had made various
attempts to develop a strategic plan, none had been successful.
The need for Amtrak to have a meaningful strategic plan was
first identified in a 2005 GAO report. We recommended that
Amtrak develop a strategic plan utilizing a process that
incorporates best practices for strategic planning. Amtrak
agreed, and the plan was issued in October 2011.
Amtrak's board of directors also requested that we review
Amtrak's risk management processes. Our March 2012 report
showed that Amtrak did not have a systematic, enterprisewide
framework for identifying, analyzing, and managing risks. The
board chairman and the president and CEO responded that once
they understood the commitment required, they would provide
guidance to management about Amtrak's plans to implement a risk
management framework. We have discussed our views on the way
forward with the board and understand that the board is in the
process of determining how it will address this issue.
Starting in 2009, we issued a series of reports on human
capital management. Our July 2011 report found that only
limited progress had been made in implementing our prior
recommendations. In response, Mr. Boardman agreed to make
improved human capital management a priority. Since then,
Amtrak hired a new chief human capital officer, and he has
developed and is implementing an action plan to address our
recommendations.
We also issued two reports on Amtrak's food and beverage
program. In September 2012, we reported that food and beverage
activities were being carried out by two departments, and their
activities were not well coordinated. Management agreed to
consolidate the two, and did so on October 1, 2012.
Since 1995, we have issued a series of reports identifying
more than $83 million in overpayments on inaccurate invoices
from host railroads. Amtrak agreed to improve its invoice
review process and has done so. In addition, this year Amtrak
recovered over $20 million of overpayments we had previously
identified.
In conclusion, the company is focused on operating more
like a profit-making business. It is in the early stages of
implementing many of these improvement initiatives, and we
believe that sustaining these initiatives over the long term
and effectively implementing them will be the key to success.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be
glad to answer any questions that you or other members of the
committee may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and we will hold questions.
We are going to now recognize Mr. James Stem, and he
represents the United Transportation Union's workers, and we
are very pleased to have him back and also look forward to his
testimony. You are welcome and recognized, Mr. Stem.
Mr. Stem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Cummings. We appreciate the opportunity to testify. There are
about 19,000 Amtrak workers, and I, today, am bringing you
their message. UTU represents about 3300 career professional
Amtrak employees. I would also like to revise my remarks by
adding the fact that I had the personal opportunity to work in
rail passenger service for a railroad during the 5 years
preceding the creation of Amtrak. I witnessed firsthand the
decline of the equipment, the services that were there, the
attempts by the railroads to get out of that business because
liability was a major concern, and it was a money-losing
prospect. I also had the opportunity to work on Amtrak trains
during the next 10 years following the creation of Amtrak, and
was embarrassed at the shape of the equipment that Amtrak
inherited when they first started this process. So Mr. Boardman
clearly identified this has been a major issue.
I would like to continue my remarks by pointing out that
labor doesn't have expertise in business organizations. Our
members are normally on the other end of that. Our interaction
with Amtrak has been very positive in the creation of that
plan. We have had no complaints from the field about Amtrak's
reorganization, and we support this effort and commend Amtrak
in modernizing their operations. We also commend Amtrak for
applying modern technology in managing the resources that
Amtrak has and their personnel.
Now that Amtrak is not operating from day to day in a
survival mode with constant threats to its very existence, we
are confident this well-planned organization will focus
Amtrak's assets and workers in areas where the best
improvements in service will happen.
Our Amtrak members are a part of the transportation team
who operate trains, moving passengers to their destinations
safely and on time. This activity requires simultaneous
coordination with every aspect of the operation from mechanical
inspections and repairs to maintenance and repairs to tracks
and signals, to the positioning and cleaning of the equipment
and dispatching of intercity and commuter trains to multiple
destinations in many directions.
Making changes in one area of operations is not a simple
issue because it also requires changes in other areas to ensure
continuity. Eliminating and consolidating layers of management
responsibility in this organization plan, in our view, is a
very productive move. We are encouraged that Amtrak made
reductions in management last year, and their new
reorganization plan proposes to reassign even more management
positions. Amtrak should earn the support of Congress for this
upgrade in their organizational structure. Amtrak operates with
safety and customer service woven together as top priorities.
Our operating crews fully understand that safety comes first,
and on-time performance is the goal. This upgrade of operations
furthers these priorities and positions Amtrak to meet the
demand for significant increases in rail passenger service.
Amtrak operating crews are among the most productive workers in
this system. Every Amtrak employee should be placed in a
productive position that supports the needs of customer service
and the managed growth of our operations. Our members are ready
and eager to work. Congress asked Amtrak to share a plan on how
to improve services and reduce the travel times between our
major population centers. The next generation plan provides a
roadmap for that improvement and identified the funding
requirements.
Amtrak's ridership set a record last year, as Mr. Cummings
and Mr. Boardman indicated, and with an aging population,
higher gasoline prices, and the total instability of fuel
resources, highway and aviation congestion, millions of more
travelers will choose to ride the train if the service is
available and dependable.
Amtrak workers are prepared and well trained to provide
services to our customers, but for us to succeed, Congress must
provide Amtrak with consistent and predictable multiyear
funding for modernization and capacity upgrades. Beyond
reorganization, what Amtrak really needs is dramatic increases
in capital investments. Amtrak's next generation plan for the
Northeast Corridor is outstanding. It will cut the transit time
in half between Washington and New York as well as between New
York and Boston. Capital spending to increase speeds and
upgrade Amtrak's infrastructure is the ticket to transporting
Americans in a cost-effective and energy efficient manner.
We in labor are Amtrak's partners. We urge this committee
to allow Amtrak the latitude to reorganize if they so see the
need, but more importantly to authorize substantial amounts of
additional funds for Amtrak's capital needs.
Amtrak also plays a central role in financing our railroad
retirement system, which is a self-funded pension that this
committee in 2000 and 2001 reformed. Changes in the Federal
treatment of Amtrak, such as significant funding cuts or
passenger rail privatization, could jeopardize the solvency of
our railroad retirement system that affects 270,000 career
railroad employees around the country. Americans want a
national intercity rail passenger network, and Amtrak is
uniquely able to fill that need. Highways and commercial
aviation will not alone meet the Nation's future passenger
transportation needs.
The coordination of air and rail passenger services should
be mandated to free more air slots and provide timely rail
services for shorter travel distances in 300-mile ranges. A
modern, efficient, intercity rail passenger system is a
necessary part of a balanced transportation system. Congress
should recognize that intercity rail passenger service requires
public subsidies, just as our airline and bus partners also.
Many airline executives are on record today supporting the
coordination of air and rail services to increase the capacity
of our existing airports.
I also want to make sure this committee is aware of our
full support for the expansion of our freight rail capacity as
well. Amtrak and our freight railroads work together as
partners. Both have capacity needs that can be mutual goals. We
support the expansion of Amtrak's services and understand that
this expansion also must address the capacity needs of our
freight rail partners. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, and thank you for your
testimony. We share your commitment to making certain that
Amtrak employees, particularly those long-serving, are treated
fairly as we move forward, and also that we meet our
obligations as far as their commitments, retirement, pension
benefits and other items. I think we have always advocated
that. Thank you for your leadership on issues, Mr. Stem.
Representing labor, I think Mr. Boardman had said that it
was 8 years that Amtrak did not have a labor agreement in
place. Is that correct? And I think you will recall at the time
that I felt that that was uncalled for. But that was the case,
wasn't it?
Mr. Boardman. Yes, sir, that was the case.
Mr. Mica. And I didn't find that case with their brothers
and sisters, union members in the freight systems, and that is
why I thought Government-supported service, such as Amtrak,
should be held to a higher standard, and I think also the
unions actually had to go to court to get relief. But that is
not the way to run a railroad or a passenger rail system. So I
think history in that regard speaks for itself.
Mr. Boardman, when did you submit the 5-year strategic
plan?
Mr. Boardman. It was approved in, I think, October of 2011.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, I point out that now I have the
greatest respect for the opinion of the ranking member.
Sometimes the other side accuses me of micromanaging. I don't
consider my role as micromanaging when in 2005 GAO said they
should have a strategic plan. In 2010 the IG also, Mr. Alves,
didn't you also say they should have a strategic plan and there
wasn't one? Is that correct?
Mr. Alves. Yes.
Mr. Mica. It was. And then for the record, in 2011, I think
I became chairman that year, Mr. Boardman did come forward with
a strategic plan in I have November, you said October, but that
was correct. So sometimes that role is one of oversight, also
one of prodding, also one of making sure that what should be in
place--I come from a business background. If this is a
corporation which is subsidized heavily by public support, the
very least they can do is have a business plan, and that plan
should be flexible.
Let's take the inspector general's report and look at again
the implementation of a strategic plan. Let me preface my
remarks by saying that there is no one who is a stronger
supporter of passenger rail service in the United States than
this guy right here. It is cost-effective. I am a fiscal
conservative. You can move more people for less. As far as the
environment, energy, it is absolute winner. But we have to do
it with the least amount of subsidy. And god forbid there
should be a profit in some of these operations, but we could
actually I think achieve that if we worked together on it.
So let's take the report together. First of all, the board
of directors, in PRIIA we had organizational problems from the
very top, the board. I was very pleased preceding this hearing,
and I asked the question before, we went to a nine-member board
and seven members of the board had been appointed. Two Democrat
appointees were lacking. Yesterday, I am told, was it yesterday
the White House submitted these two nominees and I am pleased
to see that, and I hope the Senate acts with due speed and
everyone helps get the full complement of the board in place.
Sometimes it takes a hearing to get action, whether it is
implementation of a strategic plan or highlighting that the
board should be filled. And maybe they did that of their own
volition, but I am very pleased that it was done.
All right, let's look at the key folks in place, and you
divide it into six divisions. I am very pleased to hear what
you said about possibly not going forward with some of the
commuter activities in the organization plan, at least from
hiring additional personnel in that area.
We also find that, talking about ridership, Mr. Boardman,
the highest percentage of increase in ridership is in State-
supported routes, is that correct?
Mr. Boardman. Yes.
Mr. Mica. OK. And next year, according to PRIIA--it is next
year, isn't it, Joyce--that the States will now have to step up
to the plate and pay full support. That is correct, Mr.
Boardman?
Mr. Boardman. Under section 209, yes.
Mr. Mica. Yes. Under 209, right. And that actually will
help your bottom line pretty dramatically. It is about $100
million a year, some of the calculations in that range, is that
correct?
Mr. Boardman. I think, yes, that is within the range. I
think it might be a little different than that, but yes.
Mr. Mica. I notice Mr. Joe McHugh sits behind you with a
smiley face, was quoted in this article to say it is important
to help States make the case for Amtrak so legislatures will
invest in that. And that is one reason we want to hold your
feet to the fire, to make your passenger rail service and the
cooperative effort with the States attractive, and looking
forward to working with you. But again we have a change in that
activity and we will have to see how that evolved.
The other positions, are they all full, the vice president
and managers, Mr. Boardman?
Mr. Boardman. General managers; one of them is a vice
president, that is the Northeast Corridor infrastructure and
development, Stephen Gardner.
Mr. Mica. Yes, and he will be in here I think when we do
the Northeast Corridor. We want to hear his report.
Mr. Boardman. I don't know whether I will send him or not.
Mr. Mica. I would love to have him.
Mr. Boardman. I understand that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. We will just subpoena him as a last act.
Mr. Boardman. I have to control everything he says, Mr.
Chairman. No, I am kidding. And I have to now wipe the smile
off Joe McHugh's face, is that what I need to do here?
Mr. Mica. He didn't have a smile.
Mr. Boardman. OK. But we have moved forward I think in the
business lines. But the other piece of this, which had I not
been so long-winded on other parts of what I said earlier, is
really the matrix part of this. And we have a structure of
chiefs--chief mechanical officer, chief engineer, chief safety
officer--and they set the standards and the budgets necessary
for the business line chiefs to carry out. In that way, you
have not just a customer focus, but also a bottom line focus,
and there is the expertise that is there necessary for us to
make improvements in mechanical maintenance and improvements in
safety and improvements in all the things that are needed to
support these general managers to get their jobs done. Some of
them are filled. Some of them are posted and they will also be
finished off in this organization.
Mr. Mica. OK. Again, I look at the areas where we are
losing money, or you will be losing--you may be losing some
opportunities in providing some service and State-supported
service.
Another area that the inspector general highlighted and has
been of interest to the committee, we did a hearing on it, is
the food service, and you have addressed some changes in that
and improving some of the controls.
What was the recommendation, Mr. Alves, I can't find it
here in the report, was it a consolidation of the two
activities overseeing food service?
Mr. Alves. Yes, part of the food service was provided or
overseen in the Transportation Department, which is part of the
Operations Department. The commissary and food delivery
function was overseen in the marketing department. And what we
found was that they weren't coordinating fully.
Mr. Mica. Has that been implemented, that recommendation,
Mr. Boardman?
Mr. Boardman. Yes.
Mr. Mica. OK. And, you know, again, I am not micromanaging,
but if you are losing $79 million on food service with a
captive audience 3 years ago, and that increases to $84.5
million this past year, you have a problem. Now, yesterday I
did not order anything on Amtrak so I saved the taxpayers money
as far as buying--purchasing food. But it is a problem. We want
in the structural reorganization or organization the
recommendations if they make sense and they can be effective
that are recommended by the inspector general implemented. So
it appears that that is being addressed.
Finally, let me address again a part of the report. It is
talking about again Acela and some of the Amtrak services. It
says, in contrast, availability and reliability remain the same
or declined slightly for the remainder of Amtrak's equipment.
Compared with Acela's train set availability, there is an
improvement of 14 percent. The availability of the rest of
Amtrak's equipment has stayed roughly the same compared with
Acela's reliability improvement of 11 percent, and the rest of
Amtrak's equipment is on average less reliable than before.
That is a concern. Mr. Boardman----
Mr. Boardman. Yes, I can address that. We agree that it is
getting older and therefore it is becoming more unreliable now
in some ways. We have ordered new electric locomotives on the
Northeast Corridor to make substantial improvement.
Reliability-centered maintenance we think is an excellent
way to go. It is something that has helped us a lot with the
Acela fleet. That is our premium service and certainly we want
to maximize its use.
If we use the same plan with the rest of the company right
now in the same way, we would probably be talking 600 to 700
more employees. And so we don't see the balance yet that we
need to increase the revenues necessary to pay for that,
compared to where we are right now with the reliability. We
really looked at that premium service differently because the
fares were so much higher in that process.
Mr. Mica. OK. I didn't mention this before, but out of the
report, just for the record, Amtrak's food and beverage service
has incurred a direct operating loss of over $526 million in
the last 6 years. A half a billion is not chump change, and
just want that in the record.
Mr. Boardman. I think we had it in the last record, but,
yes, I understand.
Mr. Mica. Finally, also as recommended, and this is also
from the report, the vice president of operations has agreed
that Amtrak will develop a 5-year plan for reducing its direct
operating losses.
Mr. Boardman, can you shed some light on that?
Mr. Boardman. Well, it goes back to the entire structure of
what we are trying to do in terms of accountability. And one of
the issues at Amtrak early on was the lack of accountability
and lack of even understanding of what a budget was and the
management of a budget that people had available to them.
And so a lot of the strategic plan comes out in how are you
going to measure the metrics and what are your goals. How do
you get organizational excellence and what are you looking for
in terms of financial excellence, in terms of maximizing
revenue, optimizing our operating ratio, doing the normal
business things that we need to get done, and holding each one
of those folks accountable to a performance measurement system
personally in their operation to get that done? So that is
really the structure that the VP for operations and the whole
company will begin to really do.
We saw early on, and I compliment Ted for recommending the
commissary, but that was something we saw that we needed to
change quite early. The problem is you have to operate the
railroad while you are making these changes, so you have to be
prepared to make the change in a way that makes sense and you
have to have it tied in together to the rest of the structure.
So we did that. And I think Ted and I talked about that early
on, those kinds of things need to happen. We are still doing
that as we are finding ways to make those improvements.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. For the record, General, will note
that Amtrak is now taking all credit cards, at least on the
Acela train that I was on, which is something you had
recommended. We hadn't gotten implemented, but Mr. Boardman has
made progress on that. And also they advise you to get a
receipt from the cafe too. So you are making good progress.
Let me yield on that tone to Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To Mr. Boardman, I want you to be real clear, and I know
you are, but I want to make it real clear that on both sides of
the aisle we want effectiveness and efficiency. And it does no
one any good, including the employees, if we are not zeroing in
on effectiveness and efficiency. And I assume from your
comments that that is what you have been trying to do.
But let me just go to this area, and I want you to listen
to me very carefully, Mr. Inspector General, on this issue,
because you raised it.
When you tell me that in a year you were able to recover
over $20 million in overpayments, I got to tell you that sends
all kinds of whistles going on in my head. The first question
is, why do we have the overpayments?
The second question is, you know, when you are talking
about strategic plan and organization, there must be somebody
who is responsible for making those overpayments, in other
words, somebody in charge. And what have we done to address
that? How much is still out there? Because I can tell you what
happens up here is that if somebody has got something against
you, they will take stuff like that and do some damage, and
rightfully so. I mean, it is like setting yourself up.
So help me with this. Talk about these overpayments and
talk about--I mean, does the strategic plan say we project that
we may have X amount of overpayments.
And you are talking about measurements, Mr. Boardman. Does
the strategic plan then say we will recover X? Because that
means that somebody has got some money that they are not
supposed to have, and that is money that we could be using to
address our issues here. Go ahead.
Mr. Alves. Thank you. I would like to provide some
background on this issue. It had been a longstanding issue
within Amtrak going back to when Amtrak was formed. This unit
which paid the invoices from host railroads for Amtrak
operating over their track, there really was no billing review
process. For years the company relied on the inspector general
to come in after the fact, years after the fact, and
reconstruct the payments and identify overpayments.
I think in 2008 or so we recommended that as a basic
business process that the company should have to review a bill
before they pay it. The company agreed and they worked
aggressively and hard to implement an improved billing review
process.
The second issue that we had is that the billing review was
in the same group that was structuring the agreements with the
host railroads and we thought that was too close and there
needed to be a separation of duties. So we also recommended
that that billing review process be separated from the group
that is negotiating and working with the host railroads. The
company agreed to that as well.
It took a couple of years probably, and these things do
take time, for the company to put that structure in place,
develop processes and policies and work guides. But at this
point the function is in existence and the group is reviewing
railroad bills as they come in and before they are paid. So we
think that the problem----
Mr. Cummings. So are you saying that you think we have
stopped the hemorrhaging----
Mr. Alves. Yes.
Mr. Cummings [continuing]. And now we need to sort of go
backwards and see what we may have lost. I mean, is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Alves. What we are doing is we are finishing up the
last of our railroad billing review audits. We have covered
most of the large amounts of money that are out there, and I
think about the end of the year we will issue the final audit
reports, and at that point we are going to turn everything over
to the company. I am not sure that it is cost-effective at this
point to go back, you know, 5 or 10 years and try and recover
small amounts of money. So we think that we are covering the
bulk of the money in our audit reports and the company can move
forward productively from here.
Mr. Cummings. Just one quick thing to you, Mr. Boardman. I
just want you to talk about, you made a big deal, you spent a
lot of your time talking about safety, and, you know, you talk
about--and I want to know what you mean by that. You were
saying that when you went and you tried to do your review you
figured out that the thing was safety and you kept saying
safety. What does that mean?
Mr. Boardman. Well, it means that the system itself, if you
don't have a safe transportation system, whether it is a bus
system, aviation system, rail system, you won't have customers,
because they won't trust the ability to get on the train and be
safe, that you are not going to have accidents, that you are
not going to have----
Mr. Cummings. This is what I want, what you are saying
right now. This is what I want to hear right now. Come on.
Mr. Boardman. That you have well-trained employees; that
they know what to do in an emergency; that we are capable of
handling our passengers in a very safe, efficient manner.
Mr. Cummings. And passengers were worried about that, is
that what you were saying?
Mr. Boardman. They could be, if we began to have those
kinds of problems, and there are those areas and pockets where
that existed, but it was also among employees. So it is not
just the passenger, it is also the employees.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. [presiding.] Anyone else have any questions? Go
ahead, Mr. Bucshon.
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you.
Mr. Boardman, I am going to ask a fundamental question. Can
a passenger rail line in this country be profitable?
Mr. Boardman. Our Northeast Corridor is profitable, the way
we operate it, in terms of the operating costs itself.
Dr. Bucshon. And now as a Nation, across the country, if
you add on the rest of what Amtrak does across the country, I
mean, is it possible to be profitable in your view?
Mr. Boardman. No, not without a policy decision by
Congress, which is lacking here.
Dr. Bucshon. What decision would that be?
Mr. Boardman. Whether the Congress believes whether a basic
transportation network in this Nation is necessary. They
decided that in 1971----
Dr. Bucshon. Right.
Mr. Boardman [continuing]. And they have decided it several
other times. But there needs to be a decision, just like there
is a decision every day that we are going to invest in a
highway system or an aviation system. For example, you have
50,000 employees of DOT that are focused on aviation and there
is only 60,000 people in DOT. So Congress has a lot to decide
about what it wants in passenger rail across the Nation.
Dr. Bucshon. So basically, though, passenger rail on its
own without Government subsidization, it is not possible to be
profitable.
Mr. Boardman. Even the curbside buses, which are made a lot
of today, without the subsidization of being able to pick up on
the curb and not sustain all the overhead costs, not having to
pay for the capital and the highways, could not be profitable.
However, they are now, and fortunately here in Washington we
have moved them into the terminal.
So the answer is yes, there is no mode of passenger
transportation, including aviation, that can be profitable only
from the fares.
Dr. Bucshon. Yes, that makes sense to me.
Mr. Alves, you made a comment that said Amtrak needs to be
run, and I think this is basically what you said, more like a
profitable business. I mean, Amtrak was set up 40 years ago to
be a profitable business, so it has taken us 40 years. What did
you mean by that, for example, running more like a business and
less like a Government agency? Are there specific things that
need to be done? I mean, I know you have got the strategic plan
and I understand that, but when people always say that, they
say that all the time, we need to run Government more like a
business or Government needs to run more like a business. I
mean, that is a statement that can be made, but it seems like
there is a lot of smart people that are working on this issue
and it has taken 40 years and we are still arguing over the
same points.
Mr. Alves. It has taken a long time. And Amtrak actually is
a business. It is not a Government agency and does not, I don't
think, operate as a Government agency. It operates as a
business. I think the focus here----
Dr. Bucshon. In that respect, it does. But it operates like
a Government, because when we lose money, that doesn't matter.
Mr. Alves. Amtrak relies on the Government for----
Dr. Bucshon. That just gets paid off by Congress, right?
Mr. Alves. Amtrak relies on the Government for its
existence and survival from the subsidy, both operating and
capital subsidy. I think what is different now is that there is
a focus within the company at the leadership levels, the board
of directors and Joe Boardman, on making the company operate as
efficiently as it can and focus on the customer.
This idea of delineating different customers and moving to
lines of business and developing accountability mechanisms is
really focused on the bottom line. And I think that is what has
been significantly missing in the past. The past focus was on
running the trains. We can run the trains, but can we do it as
efficiently as we possibly can? I think that the new focus is
driven by the strategic plan, and it is driven by the whole
concept of organizing around lines of business and holding
people accountable for achieving a goal, and that goal is in
the future going to be much more focused on the bottom line and
financial performance. That is my sense of what is happening in
Amtrak.
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you for that. I guess my sense is that
from a congressional standpoint that there should be some
financial pressures on Amtrak from Congress. Otherwise, we
would never have any of the things that you are all trying to
do to streamline the operation. I mean, I think the impression
that we should always open-endedly fund things or increase
funding to this agency or that agency or subsidize this
organization or that organization without some degree of
financial pressure for efficiency, safety and other things, is
something I think that we need to avoid.
So obviously Congress wants to make sure you have the
amount of money that you need to run your organization, but
also there needs to be some financial pressure on an
organization to be more efficient, and it sounds like what you
are doing is just hopefully going to be very successful.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hanna. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is a question for Mr. Alves and for Mr. Boardman.
Mr. Alves, in your inspector general's report, there is a
troubling section on human capital management in which you have
found, and I am quoting you now, ``only limited progress'' in
implementing your recommendations, your human capital
recommendations. And the most troubling sentence is the one
that says, ``In addition, Amtrak was increasingly at risk of
encountering skills shortages as highly experienced long-time
employees retire.''
First I want to know where the gaps are when we are talking
about safety and risk, and then I really have to ask Mr.
Boardman, what is so difficult about creating training programs
perhaps for employees that are already at Amtrak so that people
who are already trained could train to the next level and
replace those who are retiring.
I need to know more about the skills shortage risk, how
serious it is and what can be done about it. And I might say in
the short term as people experience--as there is some
downsizing, for example, from the Congress, you may find more
people retiring. Could I have a response on that?
Mr. Alves. Yes. What we found was that Amtrak human capital
management was very focused on transaction type things--making
the payroll this month, processing the payroll, adjusting
people's job description--and wasn't really looking at
strategic issues.
Human capital practices have evolved over the last 20
years. Human capital management is now considered a strategic
issue that drives performance in the company. We issued a
report, and it didn't get a lot of traction in the company, we
did a followup, and Mr. Boardman reacted positively and made it
a priority.
The idea of losing skilled people is fairly common. It is a
concern now throughout the country that older employees are
retiring. You have to have new people coming in. They have to
be the right people, they have to be trained and developed, and
they have to be properly rewarded. And there wasn't a strategic
focus on those issues at Amtrak.
Since Mr. Boardman made that a priority, Amtrak now has a
new human capital officer. And one thing that Mr. Boardman
directed him to do was that within 3 months he wanted a plan to
address those strategic issues. That plan was delivered. There
has been a lot of work on it, and we meet periodically and get
briefed on the progress and I think things are underway to
correct those deficiencies. And I will let Joe talk to the
details.
Mr. Boardman. It is really not all that hard. The problem
is everything is a priority. It is a priority to resolve union
issues and have labor contracts. It is a priority to have
internal controls. It is a priority to replace equipment. We
didn't have a fleet plan in place until now.
Ms. Norton. Let me stop you for a second, Mr. Boardman.
Yours is a labor-centric business.
Mr. Boardman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. No matter how you look at it. And we are not
talking necessarily about, surely to some extent, but brand new
people who would have to be trained. You have got people. There
is surely a job ladder in your business.
And my question is very specific, and that is about
training, as mentioned in the report, training, much of which
would probably have been done on the job anyway if you are
dealing with your own employees who want to move up. Why aren't
there such training programs in place or are such training
programs planned before you have a wholesale exodus of trained
employees from Amtrak?
Mr. Boardman. We are training. We are training now. A lot
of what you have read is old news, and I think that the
inspector general was relating to that. We have got a major
change in how we manage human capital, and we have a regular
training program that improves operating services. I think a
lot of the----
Ms. Norton. Including training people to move into spots
that will be vacated by retirement?
Mr. Boardman. Well, they are not all in place yet, and they
will be.
Ms. Norton. I just want to know the plan.
Mr. Boardman. Yes.
Ms. Norton. So that would be training, much of it for
people who are already on the job who might move up?
Mr. Boardman. Some of them will be trained. There will be
succession plans for folks. We are in the middle of that now.
That is part of this process. This is very early to have a
hearing on what we have tried to accomplish in our strategic
plan that we are moving forward with.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Boardman, just might I suggest that, and
especially in light of my next question, because you could see
retirements the likes of which you haven't planned for.
Mr. Boardman. One of them could be mine. But I understand.
Ms. Norton. I certainly didn't mean you.
Mr. Boardman. Well, I am going to be 65 next month.
Ms. Norton. Oh, do you have to leave at 65?
Mr. Boardman. No, I am just saying.
Ms. Norton. You better start succession planning right
away.
But in light of the fact that your business cannot proceed
without trained people without putting those of us who board
your trains at risk, as you listed your priorities, I can only
ask, and we realize we are important, given the fact that you
already have a very well trained workforce, you do not have the
kinds of accidents and the like that grab the headlines every
other day, we would like to keep it that way and even improve
it. So I am only asking that training, particularly of people
who are on board, because that is already a trained workforce,
proceed.
I do have to ask about your reorganization when you are
taking your line businesses, and I understand the transparency
there and I think it is good business practice. But Amtrak
received about $1.5 billion, roughly speaking, in Federal
funds, and about half a million of that was even for
operations.
Now, the Budget Control Act, or the 2013 budget, I asked
staff to get me the number, has a $116 million cut in it and it
could be worse. If we don't go over the cliff, and I have to
assume we are not insane and that we are not going over the
cliff, there could be even deeper cuts as we sit and try to
reconcile the differences among us.
Does this cut then imperil any of your plans and does your
strategic plan take into account that you are likely to see
cuts rather than increases over the next several years?
Mr. Boardman. Well, yes, it does, in part at least. We are
making improvements in efficiency by using new technologies. We
have had an ability to have a voluntary retirement program. We
have had some RIFs, reduction in force in certain areas in the
company and tried to place them other places.
Ms. Norton. I hope those voluntary retirements do not mean
you shed the very skilled parts of your workforce----
Mr. Boardman. Most of them, they were all in the
nonagreement areas, so they were not the labor force agreement
force. They were all in the management area. There are about
3,000 employees that are outside the union construct here. So,
in many ways, it wasn't just moving, for example, the
commissary over to the operating side of things to make it more
efficient, it was also looking at what is it that Marketing is
really doing. They are doing their work the same way now as
they used to, for example with travel agents, which has changed
substantially from what it was in the past. Those kinds of
things we are looking at as well. So, yes, in part the kinds of
changes that we are making in the strategic plan do help in
that area.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if you could indulge me for one
short question here.
You know, Mr. Boardman, that I have been particularly
complimentary of your plan, not your strategic plan, your plan
to bring high-speed rail, to redo Union Station. It is a very
ambitious, very 21st-century plan. Does the strategic plan take
into account Amtrak's overhaul of Union Station and of its
operations in the long run for high-speed rail?
Mr. Boardman. Well, yes, it does, and the way that it does
that is in the infrastructure and investment development
business line that we have been talking about, the one that
Stephen Gardner is the vice president of. Because what we
really looked at and asked is, what is one of the most
important assets in the United States? And that is the
Northeast Corridor, from Boston to Washington, and Virginia I
think would like to move it right on to Richmond and south. In
the structure that we are dealing with, it has real estate
potential, it has high-speed rail potential.
It supports 40 million people within 40 miles of that
corridor, and we need to change how it is done. If you look at
Union Station today, and I know you know it well, you see many
vendors that are there providing services with spaces that all
used to be dedicated to passengers. We need to recreate the
space for passengers, because they are coming, and this high-
speed rail will be coming. Whether I and my team are talented
enough to make that happen, someone will make that happen for
the future, because that is the most efficient way to move
people in such a dense corridor as the Northeast.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Boardman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. You are welcome. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson, would you----
Ms. Johnson of Texas. I have no questions.
Mr. Hanna. There is no one on our side. I have a couple of
questions.
Incidentally, Mr. Boardman, it is a pleasure to see you.
Mr. Boardman. Thank you.
Mr. Hanna. Knowing that you are from Rome and knowing that
you went to Binghamton University, which I now have the
pleasure of representing. Thank you.
Mr. Boardman. Congratulations on your reelection.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you. It is a mixed bag, but thank you.
Mr. Alves, you mentioned that in the long-term plan there
are benchmarks, to paraphrase what you said, which require
accountability if they are not met. What does that mean in the
real world?
Mr. Alves. Well, actually what I was saying is that it is
not so much that the plan has the benchmarks and
accountability, it is that this entire process, starting with
the plan, should lead to that. Amtrak is not there yet. The
company is not at a place where people are being appropriately
held accountable to valid metrics.
Mr. Hanna. What would you imagine that is, though? I mean,
accountability in the public sector is difficult to require, it
is difficult to understand, to pin down since there is not a
profit motive and there are not necessarily stockholders, have
no vested interest in outcomes, other than doing a good job,
which I would hope that they all would. What would you imagine
that looks like?
Mr. Alves. Well, Amtrak has established, and I think that I
will take a shot at it, but Joe will be able to answer it much
more precisely and on target than I can.
Amtrak has established two key metrics. One is the
operating ratio, which is how Amtrak's revenue compares to its
expenses. Amtrak's operating ratio is less than 1 because we
lose money. And the goal is to bring it up.
A second incorporates capital into that. So how much
capital does Amtrak use to generate revenue against its
expenses? They are like bottom line really excellent goals.
What has to happen, though, is that the accountability part
is that everybody has a role to play, and their role is aimed
at accomplishing Amtrak's strategic goals and contributing to
those metrics. And they are then measured against how well they
contribute against that metric. And so there is a much more
important focus on the bottom line.
As I said, Amtrak is in the very early stages. And these
changes are going to take a while to take place.
Mr. Hanna. In terms of hard accountability, it is difficult
to attain and difficult to enforce and very difficult to
define.
Mr. Alves. It may be difficult, but it needs to be done.
Mr. Hanna. Exactly. Go ahead, Mr. Boardman.
Mr. Boardman. I don't think it is so difficult,
Congressman. I think one of the things that is important here
is--and I think Ted really talked about it--is the total
operating expense over the total operating revenue.
What we are really looking for are these general managers
to really understand how much revenue is coming in and what
their cost is, and that they can be held to account for.
Because we have a history. We know what those numbers are.
But we also have a performance plan for every specific
individual, and we are calling it the SMART program. You know,
you got to have an acronym to really talk about that. And that
their goals need to be specific, they need to be measurable,
they need to be achievable, realistic, and then they need to
have a date on them which provides the time.
And they won't be perfect. They will be improving as we go
forward. Each year we have made a lot of improvements in that
area because humans need that time to really assimilate what it
is that we really want them to do and what we need to do to
protect.
We have had very weak internal controls, I think, as Mr.
Alves has talked about, and we have had a very weak business
process. And the reason for that is because for years it has
been a survival mode, that we survive this year and are we
going to survive into next year? And that has begun to change
at Amtrak, I hope. And I just celebrated my fourth anniversary
2 days ago here at Amtrak. So the changes that are coming about
I think are very business related.
Mr. Hanna. So I can tell the public not to send you a bill
right now because you actually do look at them?
Mr. Boardman. Yes.
Mr. Hanna. That is incredible on its face.
Mr. Boardman. Part of the difficulty here is understanding
the level and number of transactions along the route of the
train each day, which is part of what Ted was talking about, is
whether a train was late at a certain location or not and
whether there was an incentive paid to a freight railroad as a
result of that.
Mr. Hanna. You can understand some of the cynicism----
Mr. Boardman. Absolutely.
Mr. Hanna [continuing]. That comes out of this Congress
over Amtrak when you look at that, especially knowing that
aviation is subsidized by a little over $4, mass transit is a
little over 95 cents, intercity bus, which you know a great
deal about, is a dime, and Amtrak in total, understanding what
you said earlier, is about a little over $46. That is a
substantial subsidy. Obviously the four modes of transportation
are different.
But I want to ask Mr. Cummings if you have anything.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, I certainly do. Thank you. I will be
very brief, though.
Mr. Boardman, I just want to ask you about Baltimore. Our
mayor, our train station in Baltimore, I was listening to your
answer to Ms. Norton, and we want to know what the situation is
with the Baltimore station. You know, the mayor had appointed
me to chair a commission here recently to try to address the
issue of the Baltimore station. I see your staff, they look
like they are confused.
Mr. Boardman. Well, let me just address it quickly. What I
will do is give you a written response because I am not really
up to speed on that.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, please do. And that is OK, I am not
worried about you being up to speed. I just want to make sure
that it is on the radar, because we are very concerned about
it. Baltimore is a major city and the train station is one that
we are not happy about. We want people to feel a sense of
vitality in our city. We have a mayor who is doing a great job.
But that train station is very central, as it is in most
cities. I don't know if you have been through there.
Mr. Boardman. Absolutely. I go regularly.
Mr. Cummings. It is not the prettiest picture. So I am just
curious. I mean, you may have a general statement on that or
you may have a specific statement.
Mr. Boardman. Well, I mean, I was looking at the second
floor there.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, the second floor.
Mr. Boardman. They used to have the power director's office
up on the top floor and the second floor. And we looked at what
would it a take for us to be potentially using that
differently.
So, yes, we are there. We are looking at it. I don't have
the specifics on what our plans are right this minute, but I
understand your concern.
Mr. Cummings. If possible, I would like to set up a meeting
with your people so that we can at least make sure we are at
least singing from the same hymn book and the same church on
the same day.
Mr. Boardman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. So we can get some kind of--you know, I think
it is just something that concerns us greatly. We just want to
know where Amtrak is fitting in there and what your plans are,
OK?
Mr. Boardman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. [presiding.] Thank you. Other Members have
questions? No other questions.
Well, let me just as we conclude thank our witnesses. The
purpose of this hearing and the two that we are planning is
hopefully to be constructive, to make certain that things move
forward in a positive fashion as far as Amtrak. Taxpayers have
a huge amount of interest in this, $1.4 billion, as I said,
last year, billions of dollars over the 40 years that we have
subsidized the Amtrak operation.
Almost all public transportation is subsidized in some
fashion. May not be able to eliminate that, but we can lessen
it, as was stated by the goal of actually the Amtrak president,
Mr. Boardman.
We are trying to make certain that we have as efficient an
operation, well organized, with a strategic plan. Others had
the opportunity to move forward with a strategic plan prior to
my becoming chairman; it didn't happen. It is now happening
now, and we want it to be constructed and also executed so that
we have in place the very best practices, best structure, and
one that can be flexible to change, to market requirements, to
customer demands, and to also make certain that our employees
who serve us and work hard each day for Amtrak are adequately
rewarded.
We will, as I said, have two additional hearings, Thursday
the 6th of December on high-speed and intercity passenger rail
service grant program. That is the overall high-speed program
which has been advocated by the administration. And then on
Thursday the 13th we will conclude the series on passenger rail
service with an examination of the progress we are making on
the Northeast Corridor and high-speed rail.
Yesterday in New York one of the transportation officials
said that it was a shame that the United States appears to be
falling further behind in its efforts to build a high-speed
rail system, particularly in the Northeast Corridor, which has
the highest concentration of population, the best connections
in the United States. And we will examine very carefully the
progress that is being made, the plans that Amtrak has put in
place to bring the Northeast Corridor into the 21st century of
world-class high-speed transportation.
I think the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson,
said that the speed of Acela is 83 miles per hour. Maybe, Mr.
Boardman, is it 86 miles an hour on average, just for the
record? Somewhere between 83 and 86. And I think it is in the
high sixties going from New York to Boston, which just is not
acceptable.
So the purpose of the hearings again are not only to deal
with the consumer, as Mr. Boardman talked about, but also the
taxpayers. And having been home during the Thanksgiving period
and to several cities during the Thanksgiving period, I saw
hundreds, literally thousands of Americans working so hard to
pay their bills, raise their families, be responsible citizens.
And they also send a good portion of their labor, sweat and
tears to Washington and we have to be responsible stewards and
trustees of their hard-earned dollars. And that is what we
intend to do until we call the very last hearing to order.
So, with that, if there are no other questions from members
of the committee, let me just do a little homework here. I ask
unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. We will
give it 2 weeks with the consent of the other side of the
aisle. And I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for those 14 days for additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses that can be included and will
be included in the record of today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses. We look forward to
working with you, Mr. Boardman. Thank you for your fine efforts
today, Mr. Alves, our respected inspector general, Mr. Stem,
representing our workers. Thank you so much.
There being no further business before the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, this hearing is adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]