[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1210-H1218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMTRAK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pretty excited about
[[Page H1211]]
the fact that we are going to spend an hour discussing Amtrak. I do not
think anybody in this country knows more about transportation and
transportation infrastructure and the needs of transportation than the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I have asked him to give us
kind of a broad background, bringing us up to date as to how we arrived
where we are as far as Amtrak is concerned in this country. And then we
will go to the other speakers.
I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding but, more
importantly, I commend her and acknowledge her courageous leadership in
being such a strong and consistent advocate for passenger rail service
as our senior member and ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Railroads on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
America is a third world country when it comes to passenger rail
service. That abysmal condition did not happen by accident. It happened
by design. The slow, inexorable process of deterioration of rail
passenger service began in the 1960s when the freight railroads, which
were also carrying passengers and carrying U.S. mail on the railroad
post office, the RPO overnight distribution service, began to combine
with the United States Postal Service to terminate the RPOs because
their passenger rail service was not profitable unless mail service was
included in the revenue stream. So the RPO would work the mail
overnight and drop it off along the route. They would pick up
passengers and carry them to their ultimate destination, but if the
U.S. Postal Service would drop the RPO, that line, that segment of
service, would then be unprofitable. And then they could apply, the
railroads, to the Interstate Commerce Commission for discontinuance on
economic grounds of unprofitability.
I witnessed that process happening in our State of Minnesota and in
my congressional district when I was then administrative assistant to
my predecessor in Congress. By the time I was elected to Congress,
passenger rail service had disappeared. The railroads shed all of their
so-called unprofitable lines in cooperation with the U.S. Postal
Service, and the Federal Government then to ensure that there would be
a vestige of passenger rail service in America took over, accepted the
liability and the responsibility of carrying on with passenger rail and
set up the Amtrak Corporation, American Rail Passenger Service
Corporation.
But what did they get, Amtrak? They got the remnants, rundown rail
cars, rundown locomotives. They got the rail service through the worst
sections, the industrial, rundown, in many cases abandoned industrial
sections of America's cities, not the very attractive segments of rail
passenger, not the High Sierras and the beautiful western routes. They
got on the east coast and the center of America and urban centers, the
places passengers did not want to see, that they could avoid with their
automobiles. And slowly Amtrak had to plead and beg and wheedle and
cajole for funds to invest in upgrading the track, upgrading the
passenger cars, upgrading the locomotives to continue these vestiges of
service, both long haul and short haul.
The problem with rail passenger service in America is that Amtrak
never received the investment dollars it needed to remake the entire
passenger rail system. In France, President De Gaulle convened a
meeting of his cabinet in 1968 and proposed that the cabinet approve
funding for a study of and recommendation for a completely new high
speed rail passenger service. The report came back 6 months later. The
Cabinet was convened again and the report presented; the cost, $12
billion in today's dollars. Every one of the ministers said, oh, that
will hurt defense. It will hurt health. It will hurt education. Charles
De Gaulle asked one question: Does any other country in the world have
high speed, 185-mile-an-hour rail passenger service? And the answer was
no. De Gaulle said: Then France will be the first.
That is what I call political will. That is what it took to launch
this investment. And now you have the TGV, Tres Grande Vitesse, that
goes from Paris to Lyon, 288 miles, in 2 hours and 1 minute. When I was
a student in Europe in college, I took that train. It took 4\1/2\
hours. Today, it is 2 hours and 1 minute. When I traveled from Paris to
Brussels to begin my studies at the College of Europe, it was a 6-hour
trip. Today, it is a 45-minute trip.
Two hundred sixty-four million people ride the Shinkansen high speed
train in Japan at 186 miles an hour. They have had one accident. A
portion of land subsidence occurred; no fatalities, in 30-plus years.
They have had one accident with the TGV. No fatalities. We have the
ICE in Germany. We have the Talgo in Spain. We have high speed train
service in Italy. And in America, the world's number one economy, the
best we can do is, for a few miles, 125 miles an hour on Amtrak in the
Northeast Corridor? That is wrong.
We need to make the investment in this passenger rail service. All it
takes is political will. This administration has demonstrated, rather
than stand up for and invest in rail passenger service, strengthen
America's cities, take short haul aviation out of our skies, serve
those routes of 300 miles or less with high speed passenger rail; they
want to disinvest, drive Amtrak into bankruptcy, wash their hands of
the issue and walk away from it. That is wrong. That keeps America as a
third world country.
{time} 1745
We got there by accident. We can get out of this problem by design,
by responsible investment in the future of rail passenger service.
Others will talk about the infamous September 11 when 5,240 aircraft,
commercial airplanes came out of the skies, and all of the radar
screens of our aircraft control system went dark. Amtrak was operating.
We must not wait for another tragedy to shut down an important
segment of transportation and come to the realization we should have
been investing in Amtrak. I salute the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown) for her commitment, for her dedication, for raising this
issue, taking this time to bring to the American public the need for
investment in Amtrak.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Would you answer just one question for
me before you leave. Can you let me know whether there is any form of
transportation that pays for itself?
You know, we have been raising this issue about aviation, and, you
know, we put billions of dollars, I forget how many billions into
aviation, and we talk about our transportation bill, we have it on the
floor today, and we are putting it in.
But is there any mode of transportation in the whole world that pays
for itself?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, transportation is a public service. It is
a means of moving people and goods in the public interest. And every
industrialized nation in the world supports, with public funds, their
public transportation.
Let us not fool ourselves. The freight railroads would like to say,
oh, we do not use public funds. But to get the freight railroads
started in America, the United States Government gave them land. Every
other section of land from the Mississippi River to the West Coast, the
Pacific Ocean to build their railroads.
Without that land and the rights to the minerals and the lumber on
that property, they would not have been able to build these railroads.
They are still living off the profitability of the land that they were
given in the public interest to serve the public interest.
And the same with aviation. Yes, there is a passenger ticket tax that
pays for a great deal of our airport improvement program, air traffic
control system; but the public funds pay for at least 15 percent of air
traffic controllers' costs, pays for the research and development and
new ideas in aviation.
And our highway and transit system, the passengers do not pay for
every mile of road construction or every new bridge construction. A
good deal of that comes out of public funds, either at the county,
State, or city level.
And maritime just as well. Our maritime freight shipping operations
are supported by the operating differential subsidy and construction
differential subsidy programs to which we have committed well over $12
billion over the years that I have served in the Congress.
[[Page H1212]]
So the gentlewoman's point is well taken. Transportation is a service
in the public interest, and the public should give it a reasonable
level of investment and support.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, now the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown) for providing this special hour on Amtrak and having
this very vital discussion about Amtrak's solvency and its future and
its employees.
And I certainly thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for that insightful overall perspective, historical
perspective, of rail in the United States of America and abroad.
It is my pleasure to be here tonight with my very dear friend, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), and to thank her very
much for leading the fight to retain Amtrak and its employees.
Amtrak continues to demonstrate its value as a critical public
resource, unequivocally worthy of our Federal funds. The past 3 years
have been among the most successful in Amtrak's 30-year history, 34-
year history.
Despite an overall turndown in the travel industry that has resulted
in financial disaster for our airlines, Amtrak has been making great
strides in efficiency while becoming an increasingly popular choice for
consumers. It remains a vital component of our Nation's infrastructure,
providing an invaluable public service unmatched by any other means of
transportation.
Since 2002, our rail system has gone through an exceptional period of
financial and operating stability. Amtrak has established new
accounting and financial reporting systems, trimmed mail and express
rail operations, truncated long distance routes and cut expenses while
raising ridership and engaging in the large-scale repair and
restoration of an aged fleet.
Last year, the 240 employees of Beech Grove, Indiana, which is in my
district, a heavy maintenance facility, repaired and returned to
service 15 wrecked Superliners and locomotives.
And as all of us recall the 9/11 fiasco, consumers turned to Amtrak
to continue their commuting to work and other ways. When Amtrak was
established by an act of Congress in 1970 to take over for the money-
losing private passenger rail systems in America, then Secretary of
Transportation John Volpe predicted that Amtrak could turn a profit,
but only if the Federal Government provided enough capital to produce
high-speed trains and profitable corridors.
What better investment could Congress make to ensure the preservation
of 22,000 jobs of the Amtrak employees and to preserve the vital
services for consumers around the country who rely daily on Amtrak
services.
According to the Congressional Research Service, Amtrak's fastest
train, the Acela, averages 86 miles per hour in the New York to
Washington corridor. And I am telling you, if I lived in New York or
New Jersey, my transportation would be Amtrak. I love it. I love to
ride Amtrak back and forth to New York and to New Jersey, and I am sure
the other passengers do too.
So it is my strongest, strongest request and hope that Congress will
do what it should do in terms of maintaining Amtrak and funding it at
the proper levels so that it can remain efficient and solvent for many
years to come.
And I want to again thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), for her leadership in this regard, a very
vital service for the United States of America.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, now I would bring up the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa). He is new to the Congress, but
not new to the fight as far as passenger rail is concerned. He has a
history that precedes him in the legislature in California.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman from Florida for
her vision and for her leadership and ensuring that the people of
America understand what is at stake today in the President's proposal
to cut funding for Amtrak, which I believe, Mr. Speaker and Members, is
unfair and lacking in vision.
I would like to confine my comments to focusing not only on the
impact nationally as it relates to a true intermodal transportation
system, but also that in the 21st Century, if we in fact are going to
provide the services necessary to move goods and services and people
throughout our great country, we have to have a true intermodal 21st-
century system of transportation, one that allows connectivity of our
cities, of our States, to ensure that we handle the growth necessary to
continue to improve the economy.
And that is why the President's proposal in his budget is unfair and
it is lacking in vision. We saw on 9/11 the impact when our air service
across the country was virtually grounded, and how dependent we are
upon our daily rail service as it relates to not just intercity travel
but our commuter service as well, in which Amtrak provides a tremendous
amount of service in terms of our cities for commuter purposes.
And what we saw was a greater reliance in which the northeast
corridor exceeded the amount of passenger daily usage of our air
transportation for months and months and months as we attempted to
reconstruct our service.
Mr. Speaker and Members, let me give you the California perspective.
Amtrak operates an average of 70 inner-city trains in California alone,
over 200 commuter trains per day in California. In 2004, Amtrak
serviced over 9.3 million people in California, providing service in 70
California cities.
It employs over 3,589 California residents. On top of that, when you
look at the top five busiest corridors in Amtrak across the country,
three of them, three of them are in California. Number two, the Pacific
Surfliner provides service for over 2.3 million riders in California
and it increases annually, 7.6 percent last year over 2003.
The number third busiest corridor in the Nation is the capital
corridor, from San Jose to Sacramento to Auburn. It provided over 1.1
million riders last year for over a 2.3 percent increase over 2003.
And number five, the San Joaquin services, which I have been involved
with for many years from Bakersfield, Oakland, Sacramento provides
service to over 700,000 riders annually.
And when you take into account the cutbacks in regional airline
service for mid-sized and smaller communities, in many cases this is
the only public transportation service people have on a regional basis.
When you add to the commuter trains that operate in California that
combined carry over 66,000 commuter ridership daily in the Bay Area and
Los Angeles and San Diego and Oceanside areas, you understand how
important it is to California.
As a matter of fact, California has the second highest ridership in
the Nation, second only to New York. In addition to that, our State
provides, and I have been involved as was mentioned earlier, when I
have served in the State Legislature over $70 million a year to enhance
the existing Amtrak service.
California does more than any State in the Union to provide
additional funds to improve our inner-city and commuter service. When
you look at it over the last 15 years, California has provided $1.5
billion to improve and upgrade our services. Amtrak in return during
that same 15-year period has provided over $400 million to upgrade and
to improve our services.
The bottom line is we estimate in California alone in the next 20
years that we are going to have a 300 percent growth in our inner-city
service and commuter service in California to sustain the population
growth that is estimated to be another 15 to 17 million people.
And we are going to depend mightily on an intermodal transportation
system that combines the best of our air service along with our rail
service, along with our roads. And therefore it is fitting and
appropriate this afternoon that we have this discussion, and I want to
again thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for
setting this time aside.
We all know, if we study our Nation's history, that every mode of
transportation going back to the 18th century has been subsidized in
one form or another.
{time} 1800
The canal system that first began to connect our States, the Erie
Canal and
[[Page H1213]]
the other canals, was what? The Federal Government helped finance that
for the purpose of promoting interstate trade and commerce, and we
continued into the 18th and 19th centuries. The great emancipator,
President Lincoln, in the middle of the perhaps most difficult time in
America's history, the great Civil War, when inflation was running
rampant and deficits were huge, decided to build the Transcontinental
Railroad.
In the 20th century, we have seen the expansion in our interstate
freeway system that has been subsidized by Federal, State and local
revenues. Every port and harbor in America today has some form of
local, State or Federal funding.
All modes of our transportation historically for three centuries have
had a subsidization to what? Promote trade, commerce and move our
people around. So, therefore, when we take that in light of our history
and where we are today and where we want to be in the 21st century, it
is absolutely essential that we be promoting and expanding our
intercity rail service throughout the Nation to ensure that, in the
21st Century, Americans have the proper type of intermodal
transportation system that is reflective of the world's number one
economy.
For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to act
appropriately and to ensure that we properly fund our Amtrak service
throughout America today.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you believe that 66
percent of the American people support Amtrak? Not 66 percent from the
Red States or the Blue States, but 66 percent of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and a
leader in this country on transportation and infrastructure.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, first of all, for
having this special order this evening. I also thank her for her
leadership as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads of
our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I feel very
fortunate to be a part of that subcommittee, and I thank her for her
vigilance and constantly standing up for people who need a voice.
Certainly, there is no question about it this evening, Mr. Speaker,
that there are a number of people that, just this morning and this
evening, as a matter of fact, are crowded on trains trying to get home,
many of them having worked all day, glad to be able to sit down and
relax as they ride home in an efficient and fast system of which Amtrak
has structured itself and made available to them.
The interesting thing that we face is that, so often, when we have
good things going for us and they are working, sometimes folk like to
tinker with them. And when they tinker with them, quite often they lose
a lot of their effectiveness, and a lot of times they are thrown off
the track.
But the fact is that here we have a case where the President
basically, by his actions, and I know he says otherwise, puts this very
important system, this system that I just spoke about, that so many
people take advantage of, and certainly those in my district do, is
about to take it and put it in a situation which would make it almost
impossible to operate.
So it is; I rise today to join my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle in again expressing our strong support for Amtrak, our national
intercity passenger rail service. Regrettably, this expression of
support is necessary because the President has proposed eliminating
Federal assistance for Amtrak from the fiscal 2006 budget, contrary to
what the public wants, as our ranking member just stated, with over 60
percent saying they want to see Amtrak supported, and they certainly
want to see Amtrak survive.
The simple fact of the matter is that the elimination of Federal aid
to Amtrak will send the system into bankruptcy, where the service could
be liquidated. Liquidation of Amtrak is simply not in our national
interest. As a matter of fact, if we did not have Amtrak, we would have
to invent it. The fiscal 2006 budget passed by Congress must include
Federal aid for Amtrak at a level to support the system's continued
operation.
Unfortunately, the President's proposal to eliminate Federal funding
for Amtrak is not a new one. Particularly during the last 5 years,
Amtrak has repeatedly faced threatened shutdowns and proposed
elimination of its operating subsidy. These threats have done nothing
to improve Amtrak's service but have created continued uncertainty
among Amtrak's 25 million annual passengers and 20,000 employees.
I believe that it is time that we bring to a close the prolonged
debate about national passenger rail service in which we have been
engaged in recent years by recommitting ourselves to Amtrak and to the
value of national passenger rail service.
Over the past 30 years, intercity passenger rail service provided by
Amtrak has become essential to ensuring mobility in every corner of our
Nation. Amtrak provides its 25 million intercity passengers with access
to more than 500 stations in 46 States, including access to more than
100 cities that have no commercial air service.
Amtrak also provides mobility to many segments of our population who
might not otherwise be able to travel. According to the results of a
study outlined in a 2004 Congressional Research Service report,
approximately 42 percent of Amtrak's ridership is drawn from households
with incomes less than $50,000, while 16 percent of its riders do not
own their own cars.
In creating Amtrak, Congress and the Nation made a commitment to the
value of maintaining a national passenger rail service. It is long past
time for Congress to clearly define the nature of this commitment and
to honor this commitment by providing sufficient and reliable funding
to Amtrak to enable it to succeed as a transportation service.
Our commitment must be a national commitment to national rail
service. Congress must not shift the responsibility for funding our
national intercity passenger rail service to the individual States
which cannot afford to meet it and which cannot guide a truly national,
seamless, intercity passenger rail service.
In examining how Amtrak can be strengthened, Congress must look
broadly at all aspects of Amtrak service, including its relationship
with freight railroads, and we must establish clear objectives for
Amtrak that emphasize excellent national service. Congress must also
demand that Amtrak respond to our investment by developing and
implementing a workable plan to provide the most efficient and cost-
effective service possible. Such a plan must include appropriate
benchmarks for measuring progress. And Congress must be vigilant in
demanding accountability from that system.
Finally, America has had an intercity passenger rail service for more
than 150 years, and this service remains an essential component of our
transportation network. I urge the Congress to renew our commitment to
intercity passenger rail service and to move past the annual struggle
over Amtrak by creating a reliable funding stream and to embark on a
concerted effort to enable this service to realize its full potential.
One hundred and fifty years of rail service, the fact is that, now,
that same service is under our watch, and so it is up to each of us,
each one of us and the President, to ensure that that service lasts for
another 150 years, so that when generations yet unborn look back at
what we did in 2005, they can say that we sent a powerful message to
the future, and that is that we cared about Amtrak and that we cared
about the passenger who simply wants to move from one place to another
to have the very, very best lives that they can.
With that, I again thank the gentlewoman for her vigilance and
leadership.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, may I
ask the gentleman one question before he leaves?
I know that the gentleman comes from Baltimore, which is a big city,
and many people look at the big city and know that we need Amtrak. But
would the gentleman believe that 109 small cities do not have any other
form of transportation? They do not have bus service, nor do they have
air service.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield further, I
[[Page H1214]]
often ride from Baltimore up to Connecticut on Amtrak, and I see some
of the little small stops that we stop at. The stations are very small,
but the fact is that people get on the train and people get off the
train. And I say to myself, I wonder what they would do if we did not
have that kind of service? That is the kind of sensitivity that we have
and that we must maintain. Then we have got to take our beliefs and
make sure we turn them into action.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop), also a leader on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Let me
start by thanking the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for
organizing this time this evening and particularly for her leadership
on this and so many other issues of great importance to our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of Amtrak, America's national
rail system. As a personal beneficiary of the service that Amtrak
provides and as someone who represents a congressional district that
counts on safe, reliable rail service, I am a strong supporter of
providing this vital industry the funding necessary to continue
operations.
A healthy Amtrak is an integral part of New York and the Nation's
economy and transportation systems. Amtrak offers riders a cost-
effective way to travel throughout the country. It has over 2,000
employees, serves over 500 stations in 46 States and owns and operates
over 700 miles of shared track throughout the country.
These numbers tell the story. Amtrak is a major industry helping to
support families and towns throughout the country, and it requires our
support now.
The administration budget proposal to eliminate funding for Amtrak
flies in the face of common sense and the President's stated goal of
sensibly growing this Nation's economy. The events of September 11,
2001, showed us America's reliance on the rail system and Amtrak in
particular. As planes sat grounded everywhere, goods, services and
people continued to move, thanks in large part to Amtrak.
The President's budget proposal indicates that with regard to
passenger rail, we have not learned enough from that terrible day.
There is hardly a more clear example of misguided priorities at the
Federal level. Current plans will force a major employer to shut its
doors, move people out of secure employment and cripple a
transportation system that serves millions of people. We need to
abandon this approach that will end national rail service and, instead,
look for ways to improve upon our existing structure of supporting rail
lines.
Abandoning Amtrak will destroy a system that has never been supported
adequately. In comparison to the rest of the world, we rank a miserable
25th on the list of countries that provide commuter rail funding. The
U.S. is outpaced by countries like Estonia, Belgium and Slovenia.
It is no wonder that we are debating investment in Amtrak. We have
never provided the adequate assistance that would allow Amtrak to
operate at full capacity, thereby providing no baseline for comparison
now that the President is proposing to eliminate the program.
Over 30 years ago, Amtrak replaced a faltering private rail system
failing to provide adequate services. Now, 30 years later, we are
attempting to replace an existing public passenger rail system with
some undefined private system by stripping funding for a struggling but
improving system that America supports. We should not continue this
cycle, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this proposal, as it
represents an unclear approach to a very serious issue.
Congress continues to focus on funding other transportation modes
over Amtrak to the detriment of the rail industry. Amtrak's level of
funding represents only 2 percent of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's nearly $60 billion budget; whereas over 50 percent of
the Department's spending went for highways, and nearly $20 billion
went for air travel.
{time} 1815
The fact is that America relies on Amtrak to move people. Commuter
rail systems would be faced with major roadblocks and possible route
elimination if Amtrak lost funding. So we are not just talking about an
effect on Amtrak's customers alone. Over 850,000 commuters a day rely
on Amtrak or its infrastructure to get to and from work, and it simply
makes no sense to eliminate funding for a program that benefits nearly
1 million commuters a day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to fight for the continued
operation of Amtrak by advocating for a budget providing $1.8 billion
for fiscal year 2006. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown) for her leadership on this issue.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
gentleman: Can he repeat how much we are proposing to spend this year
on Amtrak?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. The President's budget proposes zero.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Zero.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. And what we need is a budget of at least $1.8
billion.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion. Would the
gentleman believe that we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4
billion a month in Iraq, and with $3 billion, it would completely fund
the Amtrak system and bring it up to date. The people that pay the bill
are getting the short end of the stick.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Indeed they are. This country has a long
history of finding the money to support things that it considers to be
a priority, and we simply need to come together and say that this kind
of passenger rail service is a priority.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the delegate from the District
of Columbia who is a leader on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and has been on that committee ever since I have been
here in Congress for over 12 years, and I know longer, but certainly is
the voice for transportation, not just in the District, but in the
country.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her kind words. Yes, I have been on this committee for 14 years, and I
am very pleased to see the gentlewoman become the new leader of the
Subcommittee on Railroads and already, in this and other ways, is
offering excellent leadership. The gentlewoman is going to be tested,
because she faces a crisis like no Chair of that committee has faced,
with possible loss all together of Amtrak; and I congratulate her for
taking hold and having no fear, but then the gentlewoman is known to be
fearless.
Mr. Speaker, it is unthinkable that in the post-9/11 era we are
leaving large parts of our country with little or no transportation. It
began with the airlines, deregulation in the 1980s and, in order to
accomplish that, some good things came from it, but some not-so-good
things came from it, because they had to pull out of many markets that
are not unprofitable, given the deregulation. Even before 9/11, all the
airlines were, as it were, in the hospital. Every last one of them,
union controlled or not, of large airlines is now in intensive care, to
be polite about how badly off they are. So much for the airlines
already not serving huge blocks of the country.
West Coast communities and communities in the South are now up in
arms as Greyhound is about to pull out of those communities. Because
when the Federal Government took over Amtrak, we closed down half of
Amtrak. So all they had was Greyhound, and now Greyhound is gone. Yet,
I am on the Select Committee on Homeland Security working on security.
It looks like there is no way to get out of many communities in the
United States of America.
As the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) knows, we just
passed a major transportation bill, finally. Yet, we are systematically
starving transportation in our country, and if I can say that about bus
and airlines because, after all, they are subsidized.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. NORTON. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
[[Page H1215]]
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. We are working on the bill; hopefully,
we will pass it tomorrow. But I want to point out, we are looking at a
bill that is $284 billion, and our Department of Transportation
indicated that we needed $375 billion. So we are way behind. This is
because this Bush administration does not support the investments that
we really need to make in transportation, and that is why we are 17
months behind passing a transportation bill that the country and all of
the Governors, the local communities, the private sector, they all need
this investment, because our infrastructure in the United States is
falling apart.
Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank her for
reminding us that we have not even passed this bill yet; we are
supposed to get to that tomorrow. And we are 17 months late in passing
this, and there is much to complain about with this bill. Even though
the buses have dedicated funding through the highways and the airlines
have dedicated funding through the airports, there is no dedicated
funding for rail. How did rail get left out?
We are trying to be a great power on the cheap, because I never heard
of a great power that did not have first-class rail service. We
understand that apparently about airlines; that is why we subsidize the
airlines. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, I can tell my colleagues
that after the terrible tragedy at the Pentagon, there was really only
one way to get out of the District of Columbia. They closed Reagan
National Airport for 2 weeks. I do not know how the gentlewoman got
home to Jacksonville, because she sure did not get home out of this
jurisdiction.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will
yield, our local Coast Guard came to Washington and carried the Florida
delegation home.
Ms. NORTON. Amazing.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. And it took all day, because the group
was stationed out of Jacksonville, so we flew from here to Miami, then
we went to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, then to Jacksonville. That was the
only way we could get out of the city.
But let me mention to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia,
after September 11, there was another plane that went down in New York.
I do not know whether you remember that; it went down in Queens.
Ms. NORTON. Yes.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I was in New York at that time. I had
checked out of the hotel, and the hotel would not let us back in. We
did not know what was going on. And everything shut down, like the
gentlewoman said. The airport shut down; the bridges shut down. There
was no way out of the city.
I went to the Amtrak station and there I saw several Members of the
Senate and the House, and that is how we were able to get out of New
York City and get back into Washington, D.C. It is a safety issue. Why
would the richest country in the world even consider not having a rail
transportation to move people in time of crisis.
Ms. NORTON. The gentlewoman has documented the point I think
dramatically, even involving the Members of this body. We cannot afford
to leave major cities of the United States dependent on one form of
transportation. That is how the Capital of the United States was left.
We just heard the gentlewoman from Florida talk about New York being
left in the same way. Who would, as the gentlewoman says, want to even
risk that?
We are not alone, Madam Chair. Under the gentlewoman's leadership, we
are already seeing action in the other body. I was pleased to see that
Senator Conrad Burns all the way out in Montana is talking about Amtrak
and about saving Amtrak. Six Republicans have already joined him. There
is going to be a huge bipartisan effort here. I think we are going to
be successful, because there is no recourse. There is no alternative to
making sure that we have a national railroad.
The worst part of what the administration is doing is trying to
deliberately force Amtrak into bankruptcy.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will
yield, it is truly hard to believe how an administration could state
that it is their goal to put an industry out of business and put them
in bankruptcy. To me, it is just a clear example that we have gotten
our priorities wrong.
I think that this debate should not be between Democrats and
Republicans, House and Senate. I think this debate, I think it is very
important for the American people to weigh in on why they think it is
important. One of the things that I think has been a failure is that we
have not been able to convey the importance of rail service in this
country.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for making that
point, because I hope we do not have to lose it before people
understand how much they need it. The notion of bankruptcy, well, there
is a bankruptcy of policy, if bankruptcy is all one can think about for
a public service that the country cannot do without.
We know that bankruptcy has not done anything for the airlines. We
have had several airlines go into bankruptcy. They go, they come out,
but because they are a public service, they have to go a certain number
of places. And guess what? They need some kind of subsidy, and they
certainly have gotten some, even though we have required them to
operate as businesses.
We used to require the railroads to operate as businesses; but
beginning in 1971, the Congress understood that the business model did
not work for railroads. It does not work for railroads anywhere in the
United States. Yet that is what we have here: bankruptcy. Because
policy is being determined by ideology, the ideology that says that if
the private sector cannot do it, then maybe we do not need it, and that
is why the gentlewoman's point is so important.
Somebody needs to get up and tell the Congress and tell the
administration that they do need it. It is not ideology that should
decide whether the Nation is going to have railroads; it is old
fashioned American pragmatism. We took them over, eliminating half of
the lines in 1971, because the private sector said, hey, there is no
profit in this. What makes us think there is profit in it now, when
even we do not want to give a subsidy that would be required of us as a
public body.
I want to alert Members here. They may think that we are talking
about the Amtrak that they see here every day; you know, the Amtrak
that goes to Pennsylvania Railroad, the Amtrak of Union Station. I am
talking about the Amtrak that exists in 46 States, I say to the
gentlewoman. That is the Amtrak I am talking about. The Amtrak that
affects each and every Member of the House and Senate. I think we ought
to alert Members what we are really talking about. We are talking about
the national network that we call Amtrak that, in fact, serves the
entire United States. If Amtrak were an airline, it would be the eighth
largest airline in the United States.
The thing that most gets me about what it is that the administration
apparently says it wants to do, and here I am quoting what Secretary
Norm Mineta said when the President's budget came over here, that they
want to change funding responsibilities to the States on a 50-50 match.
Give me a break. Hey, if the Federal Government cannot stand these
costs, are we serious that the States, which are now facing huge
Medicaid costs, huge shifts of the Federal budget to them, huge effects
of the tax cuts, are going to now be able to pick up Amtrak and keep it
going?
This is a scandal and a scandal that we must break before it goes any
further. If they think that this is like the ordinary bankruptcy where
a company comes in and picks up the pieces on the cheap, yes, you can
pick up the pieces on the cheap, but can you run a railroad. I think
what we now know is that you cannot run a railroad without subsidy.
We will not be the first country in the world to run it without
subsidy, and the reason they talk about 50-50 with the States is they
know that the private sector cannot run it without a subsidy, so they
want to shift the costs of the subsidy to the private sector. Watch
out, everybody in the House. They are coming your way, and we have to
keep the costs where the tax base is broadest, here in the House, not
on the tax bases of each and every State which are having a hard enough
time keeping their own transportation going.
[[Page H1216]]
{time} 1830
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that
there is no mode of transportation, including rail, that pays for
itself, not only here in the United States but nowhere in the world.
Public transportation is just that. We subsidize every forming of
transportation.
I really welcome this debate because I think we have been nickeling
and diming Amtrak to death, and now we need to put up or shut up. And I
think the American people, where 66 percent, not from the blue States
and the red States, but 66 percent of the American people said that
they want passenger rail in this country.
Ms. NORTON. I think that is an awfully important point to make. With
that supermajority it does not seem to me that the administration can
succeed in eliminating Amtrak if we do our work here in the Congress.
They talk about leaving the commuter rail lines there. Well, it is
interesting to hear the railroad administration say that they are
unable and unqualified to help operate those rail lines. I am not sure
what the administration is after there. Of course, those are the parts
of Amtrak that people use to get back and forth to work.
This is not very well thought out. It seems to me, if you took about
5 minutes thinking about it, you would have to come up with another
solution. In fact, let us assume that I think the best way to come to
grips with what the administration is seeking to do, let us assume that
they got their way and somehow or another they went into bankruptcy and
some company came and picked it up on the cheap, nothing resembling the
present coverage could possibly survive. I mean, some private person,
because you have a bottom line, you have stockholders, would do what
you got to do, and he would pick off the most profitable, there is a
tiny part that is profitable maybe between Boston and New York and say,
the rest of you are on your own. You would have one corridor or so
railroad. Nothing resembling the kind of coverage that we have now
would be possible.
I do want to point out something because as a lawyer, I got
interested when I learned something from my staff. I said, wait a
minute, I have to look into this. There are so many impossible missions
we have given Amtrak. They have modernized and done a very good job of
doing that.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to point out ridership on Amtrak
is up 1 million passengers. People are using the services. You lawyers
do this, suppose this. Well, let me just say, my position is what
happens when failure is not an option. We cannot fail the American
people on this issue. This issue is bigger than us. This is bigger than
the Congress. This is about the future of America. It is about post-9/
11 and whether or not we are going to provide the safety that the
American people need. We are talking about homeland security. This is
homeland security.
We have got to make sure that we can move people and not just invest
in operations, but we need to invest in safety, and not just for Amtrak
but for all of the systems. Because look what happened in Madrid when
the Amtrak was bombed. I mean, those are the kinds of things that we
need to be looking into. How can we make sure the system is safe for
the ridership?
This administration is short-minded. They have their priorities
backwards in many areas. And certainly, I feel that, I guess when you
get a 53 percent mandate, you got it going on. But as far as I am
concerned, the American people need to understand, and I think it is
our job to help educate them on the importance of Amtrak and give them
a method that they can communicate to us and let us know that Amtrak is
important.
With that, I am proposing that we do a series of whistle stops
throughout the country. I think the Members need to get out into the
districts, ride the train, and talk to the people that are doing that
ridership. And we are working on that, and we are organizing that. And
I hope that the gentlewoman will participate because I think that the
best thing to do is to have townhall meetings where the people can give
us direct input.
This is the people's House, and we represent the people of the United
States, and we are closer to them. We have to come before them every 2
years. And so I think this would be one avenue with those whistle
stops, to get out and talk to the American people and hear what they
have to say about Amtrak.
My hour is up. I am going to close by just saying, what do you do
when failure is not an option? Failure is not an option when it comes
to Amtrak. We must have Amtrak passenger rail service in this country.
The current funding issues concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental
question of where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have
an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for passenger
rail service, or we can let it fall apart, and leave this country's
travelers and businesses with absolutely no alternative form of public
transportation.
Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see
people that rely on Amtrak to get them to work each day, waiting for a
train that isn't coming.
We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to
our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs
to survive.
This issue is so much bigger than just transportation. This is about
safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the
money it needs to continue providing service, we should be providing
security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security
measures in the entire rail system.
Once again we see the Bush Administrations paying for its failed
policies by cutting funds to vital public services and jeopardizing
more American jobs. This Administration sees nothing wrong with taking
money from the hard working Amtrak employees who work day and night to
provide top quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying
to make a living for their families, and they don't deserve this shabby
treatment from the President.
It's time for this Administration to step up to the plate and make a
decision about Amtrak based on what's best for the traveling public,
not what's best for the right wing of the Republican party and the bean
counters at OMB.
I represent Central Florida, which depends on tourism for its
economy, and we need people to be able to get to the state to enjoy it.
Ever since September 11th, more and more people are turning from the
airlines to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable service.
And this is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my state. Amtrak
runs four long-distance trains through Florida, employs 990 residents
with wages totaling over $43 million, and purchase over $13 million in
goods and services last year alone. And they are doing the same thing
in every state they run in.
Some people think that the solution to the problem is to privatize
the system. If we privatize, we will see the same thing we saw when we
deregulated the airline industry. Only the lucrative routes would be
maintained, and routes to Rural locations will be expensive and few.
I was in New York shortly after September 11th when the plane leaving
JFK airport crashed into the Bronx. I, along with many of my colleagues
in both the House and Senate took Amtrak back to Washington. I realized
once again just how important AMTRAK is to the American people, and how
important it is for this nation to have alternative modes of
Transportation.
This isn't about fiscal policy, this is about providing a safe and
reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation
need and deserve.
Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to take over the money-losing
passenger rail service previously operated by private freight railroad
companies in the United States.
More than half of all rail passenger routes were eliminated when
Amtrak began service on May 1, 1971.
Although Amtrak's route system has remained essentially the same
size, it represents a mere skeleton of what was once the United States'
passenger rail network.
During the period from Amtrak's inception through 2003, the federal
government has spent $1.89 trillion on air and highway modes. In the
same time frame, Amtrak received just over $30 billion in federal
subsidies.
While the United States once had a passenger rail system that was the
envy of the world, a lack of capital investment has stalled the
advancement of corridor development throughout the country.
Dependent upon an annual federal appropriation, Amtrak's national
network is constantly threatened by under-investment, lack of a clearly
articulated federal rail policy, and an uncertain future.
Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving over 500 stations
in 46 states on 22,000 miles of track with approximately 20,000
employees.
During FY 2004, Amtrak carried just over 25 million passengers,
representing an increase of over 4 percent compared to FY 2003.
[[Page H1217]]
In addition to operating 300 daily intercity trains, approximately
850,000 commuters each day depend on operating agreements with Amtrak,
Amtrak-owned infrastructure, or shared operations.
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is the heaviest traveled railroad in
North America, with over 1,700 trains operating over some portion of
the Washington-Boston route each day.
Compared to domestic airlines in FY 2002, Amtrak ranks 8th in
ridership with a market share of 4.6 percent and 1st in passengers per
frequency.
In FY 2004, Amtrak generated approximately $2.06 billion in revenues
and incurred approximately $3.18 billion in expenses, covering 65
percent of its operating costs, on par with Canada, Spain and France.
No passenger railroad system in the world operates without some form of
public subsidy.
Outside the Northeast Corridor, five other corridors carry over one
half million people annually. These corridors are: San Diego-Los
Angeles-San Luis Obispo; San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn; New York-
Albany-Buffalo; Oakland-Fresno-Bakersfield; and Vancouver-Seattle-
Portland-Eugene.
Amtrak owned property includes 2,141 railroad cars, 425 locomotives,
20 high-speed Acela train sets, a 97 mile segment of 95 mph track in
Michigan, a 62 mile segment from New Haven, CT to Springfield, MA, 104
miles of 90 mph track in Pennsylvania, and 363 miles of the Northeast
Corridor connecting Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston; the
busiest passenger line in the country.
All transportation in the United States is directly or indirectly
subsidized. Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no
dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. These other
modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally
assisted infrastructure, and rely on government-supported security,
research, and traffic controllers.
In FY04, the United States Department of Transportation's $59 billion
budget included $34 billion for highways, $14 billion to the FAA, and
$1.217 billion for Amtrak.
Amtrak's FY 2004 appropriation of $1.217 billion represented 2
percent of the Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget.
Countries with well-developed passenger rail networks but much
smaller populations such as Germany and Japan invest $3-4 billion
annually on passenger rail, representing over 20 percent of their total
transportation spending.
In 2000, Canada announced a dedicated source of capital for five
years to fund new equipment, modernize infrastructure, and improve its
existing passenger railroad network. Canada's system is \1/3\ the size
of Amtrak's and has \1/6\ the ridership.
The State of California has invested approximately $100 million per
year in passenger rail over the past 10 years and its state-supported
trains carried 4.25 million passengers in FY 2004, representing
approximately 17 percent of Amtrak's national total. These trains are
consistently achieving double-digit ridership growth, proving that
investment in passenger rail will reap benefits.
Amtrak's corridor services operate over a 6,000-mile route system and
serve 23 states, primarily in the Northeast, Midwest and along the
Pacific Coast. With the exception of some trains operating between
Boston and Washington, which cover their direct operating costs but not
the corridor's significant capital costs, none of Amtrak's corridor or
state routes covers all of their expenses from fare box revenues.
Outside the Northeast Corridor, five other corridors carry over one
half million people annually. These corridors are: San Diego-Los
Angeles-San Luis Obispo; San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn; New York-
Albany-Buffalo; Oakland-Fresno-Bakersfield; and Vancouver-Seattle-
Portland-Eugene.
Thirteen states provide operating support for 20 different routes,
with payments totaling over $135 million in FY 2004. Many states,
including California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, and Washington
recognize the benefits of investing in corridor development, and have
spent substantial state funds to improve services with positive
ridership results.
Currently, Amtrak operates the high-speed Acela Express service,
which travels in the Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington
in approximately 2 hours 45 minutes, and Boston and New York in
approximately 3 hours, 20 minutes. Amtrak now carries 50 percent of the
air/rail market between New York and Washington, and 39 percent of the
market share between Boston and New York. This is up from 36 percent
between New York and Washington and 18 percent between Boston and New
York before Acela Express was introduced. This demonstrates travelers
will increasingly use a reliable, trip-time competitive alternative to
the congestion that is otherwise choking our cities.
Corridors in which states have invested funds to improve trip times
and frequencies include the Pacific Surfliners in California and the
Cascades Service in the Pacific Northwest. These corridors have
multiple frequencies and the potential to become higher-speed rail
corridors once infrastructure improvements can be made.
The State of California has invested approximately $100 million per
year in passenger rail over the past 10 years and its state-supported
trains carried 4.25 million passengers in FY 2004, representing
approximately 17 percent of Amtrak's national total. These trains are
consistently achieving double-digit ridership growth, proving that
investment in passenger rail will reap benefits.
The route through the Northern part of the country, the Empire
Builder, which carried over 437,000 passengers last year, is the only
public transportation service in many communities in North Dakota,
Montana and Northeastern Washington. For most of the states along the
Empire Builder, tourism serves as a major economic engine. A recent
study identifying the economic contributions of the Empire Builder
demonstrated nearly $14 million in annual economic benefits to the
state of Montana alone.
Long-distance trains also provide transportation during periods of
severe weather conditions or emergencies that stall other modes of
transportation. This was demonstrated after the September 11 terrorist
attacks that grounded air travel. Additionally, these trains provide a
strong economic benefit for the states and communities that they serve.
The majority of passengers on the long-distance trains do not travel
between the endpoints, but rather to any combination of city pairs. For
example, the Southwest Chief, which travels from Chicago to Los Angeles
via Kansas City, has 33 stops, creating 528 possible trip combinations.
Most of Amtrak's expenditures are due to the immense capital needs of
its infrastructure, particularly the Northeast Corridor, not the
operating costs of the long distance trains. These operating cost
figures should be cited with caution.
Critics often refer to the ``loss per passenger'' of the tong
distance trains. However, each long distance train passenger is the
equivalent of five short distance train passengers because of the
greater distances traveled. More importantly, these ``loss per
passenger'' figures often include not only the ``avoidable'' costs of
operating individual long distance trains (such as the cost of diesel
fuel) but all of the shared costs that Amtrak incurs for the benefit of
both long-distance and corridor trains (such as the cost of mechanical
facilities, Amtrak's computer systems, and stations like Los Angeles
Union Station). Including shared costs produces inflated and misleading
``loss'' figures, since these costs will not go away if long distance
trains are eliminated.
Eliminating all long distance trains would produce negligible cost
savings in the first few years because of the requirement that Amtrak
pay labor protection to impacted employees. When these payments ended
after five years, the savings would still be minimal: around $300
million annually.
Eliminating individual long distance trains produce even fewer
savings: most of the shared costs of Amtrak's long distance network,
such as the costs of maintenance facilities that serve multiple long
distance trains, would remain. Additionally, Amtrak continues to make
changes to its long-distance trains that will improve revenue and
finances for the system.
Amtrak recently exited from the mail and express business, resulting
in shorter and more convenient schedules, with reduced labor costs. The
repair of wreck-damaged equipment continues and will allow Amtrak to
increase capacity, and therefore revenues, on long distance trains,
which often sell out. These changes should help further reduce the
losses of long-distance trains.
Amtrak's right to operate passenger trains over freight railroads
comes from the Rail Passenger Service Act. This act states that: Amtrak
has the right to access all rail lines in the U.S. to operate intercity
passenger trains and; Amtrak trains have dispatching preference over
freight trains.
With the exception of trains over the Northeast Corridor between
Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, Amtrak trains operate over tracks owned
and managed by the nation's freight railroad companies.
In the past, congestion on these freight routes has caused delays for
Amtrak trains, however, this past summer has seen significant delays
and inconveniences to Amtrak's passengers across the country.
Amtrak's 5-year Strategic Plan, which was approved by its Board of
Directors on June 10, 2004, specifies that approximately $1.8 billion
will be required for fiscal year 2006.
According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service,
both the now defunct Amtrak Reform Council and the DOT-IG acknowledge
the need for at least $1.5 billion in capital and operating support.
Seeking no funds for direct Amtrak expenses and ceding control of the
railroad to a
[[Page H1218]]
bankruptcy trustee, whose legal responsibility is to Amtrak's
creditors, represents a drastic and unrealistic turnaround in the
Administration's policy.
Since David Gunn's arrival, Amtrak Total Ridership has increased by
11.6 percent. The number of intercity trains operated have increased by
21.4 percent. The number of trains on the NEC has increased by 29.2
percent while others have increased by 17.3 percent.
Ridership on the NEC is 10 percent and other corridor trains, like
the Pacific Surfliner, Capitals and San Juaquins in California and the
Cascades in Oregon and Washington have increased by 27 percent driving
a 12 percent increase in ticket revenue.
Americans have chosen it as their form of travel in record numbers.
In the 3 years post September 11th, Amtrak has proven its value to the
nation and has increased its ridership steadily.
Last year, Amtrak carried 25 million passengers, up from the previous
year's record. When given the option, travelers choose Amtrak over
other, less convenient forms of travel. In FY04 the air-rail market
from DC to New York was split 50 percent to 50 percent, Los Angeles to
San Diego was 30 percent to 70 percent and Portland to Seattle was 30
percent to 61 percent.
David Gunn has made real progress reforming the railroad since taking
the helm in May of 2002. Over the last 30 months he has decreased the
workforce by more than 22 percent, removing unnecessary layers on
management, increased train service and operation, eliminated and
realigned routes for greater efficiency and implemented more internal
reforms than any of its previous CEOs.
In fact, Amtrak's core operating expenses are lower today than they
were when he took over. David Gunn has made real reforms and has proven
to be the right person to continue fixing the problems that have
plagued Amtrak over the years.
____________________