[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E277-E278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            AMTRAK ROUTE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

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


                          ____________________