[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S7739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  REAUTHORIZING AMTRAK APPROPRIATIONS

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support S. 961, the 
administration's bill to reauthorize appropriations for the National 
Rail Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. Amtrak is a 
necessary part of a national transportation system. It has demonstrated 
its popularity with the traveling public and, more importantly, its 
ability to provide safe, efficient transportation at reasonable prices.
  My South Carolina constituents have made it quite clear that they 
want Amtrak to prosper, and wish it expanded, not terminated or forced 
to operate under unreasonable restrictions or reduced to the status of 
a regional railroad. The citizens of South Carolina and the Nation 
demand a first class rail passenger transportation service. This is 
Amtrak's mission, and its promise.
  S. 961 puts Amtrak on the path to fulfilling that promise. The bill 
concentrates on what is important, the operational and financial 
viability of Amtrak, and is not diverted from its goal by including 
provisions that are divisive and will not save Amtrak significant money 
or allow it to maximize its revenues.
  Specifically, S. 961 does not include a provision which would impose 
so-called caps on the punitive damages available to passengers involved 
in accidents while aboard Amtrak trains. Other bills which purport to 
aid Amtrak would cap punitive damages to twice compensatory damages or 
$250,000, whichever is greater. While I understand the necessity of any 
business to reduce costs, placing liability caps against passengers 
will not significantly improve Amtrak's bottom line. The General 
Accounting Office's (GAO) highest estimate of savings from such caps is 
less than one percent of Amtrak's capital funding needs.
  Moreover, the provision ignores the value of punitive damages to the 
public. With punitive damages a possibility, Amtrak has the incentive 
to properly train its personnel, invest in safe equipment, and reward 
safe operations. Finally, such a provision is unnecessary. Punitive 
damages have never been awarded against Amtrak.
  S. 961 puts the emphasis where it should be, on authorizing 
appropriations of $5 billion for Amtrak over the next six years. It is 
this money that is needed to fund Amtrak operations, equipment 
purchases, much needed capital improvements, and expanded services, not 
the small amount any liability cap will provide the rail carrier. We 
would all like to avoid paying Government subsidies for this service, 
but we cannot ignore that the provision of transportation 
infrastructure is a necessary function of Government, whether involving 
highways, bridges, airports, mass transit, or rail. It should be noted 
that a 1994 study of central government subsidies of rail 
transportation showed that U.S. subsidy levels are 35th in the world, 
well below those of Europe.
  S. 961 also avoids the unnecessary controversy brought about by an 
effort to provide indemnification for freight railroads over whose 
tracks Amtrak largely operates. Some argue that freight railroads need 
protection from accidents between their trains and Amtrak trains. 
Whatever the merits of indemnifying particular freight railroads in 
particular cases, what has been proposed in several bills is the 
complete indemnification of any freight railroad for any accident, 
regardless of cause or fault. In other words, if a freight railroad 
employee acts intentionally or with gross negligence and causes an 
accident, Amtrak would pay for that accident, most likely with tax 
dollars paid by the American people. The American people would be 
forced to pay for the mistakes of a multi-million dollar private 
corporation. This is indefensible.
  In 1987, a Conrail engineer, after smoking marijuana, drinking beer, 
and disabling safety equipment, ran his Conrail locomotives into the 
rear of an Amtrak train near Chase, MD. The disaster cost 16 lives and 
175 injuries. In the resulting litigation, a court found the conduct of 
the engineer to involve gross negligence. The accident cost $130 
million. If the full indemnification provision had been in effect at 
that time, Amtrak, which was completely blameless, would have been 
required to pay all of the damages associated with that accident. 
Amtrak would have had to pay the cost of an accident beyond its control 
and that it was powerless to prevent. There is no more potent example 
of the unfairness of such a provision.
  One other unacceptable provision that was wisely omitted from S. 961 
is a so-called sunset trigger provision. Unfortunately, such a 
provision is contained in S. 738, the Amtrak bill recently ordered 
reported by the Commerce Committee. The provision establishes a new 
Amtrak Reform Council [ARC] to investigate Amtrak's financial 
condition, make a determination of Amtrak's ability to meet its 
financial goals, and present a report on Amtrak's condition to the 
Congress. If the ARC determination is negative, Amtrak is required to 
prepare a liquidation plan and the ARC is required to prepare a plan 
for restructuring Amtrak. Both plans are sent to Congress and if, 
within 90 days, the Congress does not enact the restructuring plan, the 
liquidation plan must be implemented. Thus, to kill Amtrak, any action 
to save it need only be delayed by its congressional opponents for 3 
months.
  Under this provision, Amtrak could be liquidated without either House 
of Congress taking any responsibility by voting for or against the 
liquidation plan. There would not have to be any debate in Congress on 
Amtrak or the liquidation plan. No questions of Amtrak's worth or 
importance and no indication of the consequences of eliminating Amtrak 
would have to be addressed. A transportation program of vital 
importance to millions of Americans would be eliminated without another 
word. This is nothing more than Congress evading its responsibilities 
and should not be allowed.
  S. 961 is the right approach. We should insist that Amtrak run its 
operations in a business-like, efficient manner. And we should conduct 
vigorous oversight. However, we should not complicate its authorization 
legislation with extraneous provisions, and any decision to discontinue 
passenger rail service in this country must be made in full view and 
with complete information on the economic and social costs of doing 
so.

                          ____________________