[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 17766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        INTRODUCTION OF THE EMERGENCY DIRECTED RAIL SERVICE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 10, 2003

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Emergency 
Directed Rail Service Act. We have now reached a point almost exactly 
one year after Amtrak's last shutdown threat. Only an emergency 
``loan'' under the otherwise crippled Railroad Rehabilitation Finance 
(RRIF) program and an emergency appropriation prevented Amtrak from 
shutting down, stranding thousands of commuters on and off the 
Northeast Corridor, and ending freight service on the Corridor. (The 
``loan''--supposedly for 90 days--has not been repaid to this day.)
  Based on last year's threat, I introduced an earlier version of this 
bill, to provide a ``safety net'' of emergency directed service powers 
under the auspices of the Surface Transportation Board if Amtrak did 
shut down. Such a threat is still present. Amtrak has pending funding 
requests far in excess of the President's budget request and has made 
no significant structural or financial changes in the last year. Thus 
the nation's commuter railroads and freight service on the Northeast 
Corridor are still hostages to a new shutdown threat.
  This legislation is intended to prepare the nation for the 
possibility that Amtrak will either repeat its prior threat, or that 
Amtrak's precarious financial situation will cause an involuntary 
cessation of service. This bill is part of my effort to make sure the 
country is as prepared as possible should any such shutdown occur.
  I am particularly concerned about the effect on freight movements in 
the Northeast and on commuter operations around the country and 
consequently on our national economy. An Amtrak shutdown could 
adversely affect the economy in the Northeast United States, because 
considerable freight would not be able to get to its destination--
especially plants where the Northeast Corridor is the only rail access. 
Moreover, commuters in the Northeast and around the country may not be 
able to get to work, either because the commuter authority operates on 
Amtrak infrastructure or because the commuter authority uses Amtrak 
employees to operate or maintain its trains.
  Last year, before introducing the predecessor of this bill, I wrote 
to Linda Morgan, the then Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board, 
and asked whether the Board had the power to direct freight and 
commuter service that would be adversely affected by an Amtrak 
shutdown. Ms. Morgan responded that the STB was unclear whether it 
would have the power to direct freight and commuter service in the 
event of an Amtrak shutdown and that its emergency powers have ``never 
been tested before in this context . . . and . . . could be challenged 
in court.''
  This country needs someone to have the power to address the fallout 
on freight railroads and commuters if Amtrak shuts down. The 
legislation I introduce today does just that. It makes it clear that 
the STB has the authority it needs to act in the event Amtrak ceases 
service.
  In particular, the bill would give the STB the authority to order the 
continued maintenance, signaling, and dispatching of the Northeast 
Corridor. It would give the STB the authority to use federal funds to 
compensate the entity that conducts these services and to indemnify it 
with respect to any increased liability exposure. It would also 
authorize the STB to direct service and to provide interim financial 
assistance to commuter operations around the country affected by an 
Amtrak shutdown.
  Further, current law requires that to the extent possible the Amtrak 
employees who already perform the work should do the work required by 
the directed service. The bill I introduce today would not change that 
requirement.
  The nation may have narrowly avoided a rail transportation crisis 
last year, but there is no guarantee that we will not see a recurrence. 
Given the precarious financial situation of Amtrak, it would be 
irresponsible not to put a ``safety net'' of appropriate emergency 
powers in place. If Amtrak manages to recover, this legislation will 
prove to be very inexpensive insurance under which no claim had to be 
made. But if Amtrak shuts down, having this insurance in place will 
prove to be the wisest of investments.

                          ____________________