[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      IN SUPPORT OF PASSENGER RAIL

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

                              of delaware

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 3, 2005

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to disagree with the President's 
proposal to eliminate federal funding for passenger rail. On February 
7, President Bush presented a budget proposal to Congress that 
contained no funding for Amtrak. As explanation, the provision states: 
``With no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy, which would 
likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the 
reorganization of the railroad through bankruptcy procedures. 
Ultimately, a more rational passenger rail system would emerge, with 
service on routes where there is real ridership demand and support from 
local governments--such as the Northeast Corridor.''
  Last year, Amtrak carried 25 million passengers on 22,000 miles of 
track with approximately 20,000 employees, including close to 2,000 
employees based in my state of Delaware. In addition to operating 300 
daily intercity trains, close to 850,000 daily rail commuters 
throughout the country also depend on operating agreements with Amtrak. 
While the Administration's goal is apparently to improve passenger rail 
by shutting it down, I surmise that eliminating federal funding for 
rail transportation would jeopardize the livelihood, and threaten the 
safety, of millions of riders and thousands of communities who depend 
on Amtrak.
  No country in the world operates an effective passenger rail system 
without government subsidies. In fact, countries such as Germany and 
Japan, which have well-developed passenger rail networks but much 
smaller populations, invest $3-4 billion annually, over 20 percent of 
their total transportation spending. In contrast, Amtrak's 
appropriation of $1.217 billion last year equaled only two percent of 
the Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget.
  Directly, or indirectly, the United States subsidizes all our forms 
of transportation, with rail receiving the least amount by far. Other 
modes of transportation operate on predominantly federally owned or 
federally assisted infrastructure, and rely on government-supported 
security, research, and traffic controllers. The U.S. Transportation 
Security Administration alone received $5.2 billion in federal funding 
for security this year, yet Amtrak sustains its own security force. 
Unlike aviation, highways, and transit, there is no dedicated fund for 
investing in passenger rail development.
  For fiscal year 2005, the Administration proposed $900 million for 
Amtrak and budgeted $1.4 billion for each year thereafter. It is 
apparent that the current proposal to cut funding for passenger rail 
represents a drastic and dangerous turnaround in the President's 
policy. Seeking no funds for direct Amtrak expenses and ceding control 
of the railroad to a bankruptcy trustee, whose sole legal 
responsibility is to Amtrak's creditors, would put the future of rail 
travel on very uncertain footing.
  Furthermore, the proposed budget provides $360 million to continue 
commuter rail traffic on the Northeast Corridor, but only after Amtrak 
ceases operations. As some of my colleagues have recognized, the 
Administration's proposal anticipates a period during which all Amtrak 
services, including those on the Northeast Corridor, would by stopped. 
With over 1,700 trains operating over some portion of the Washington-
Boston route each day, states would be devastated if forced to handle 
the disruption and congestion that terminating Amtrak service would 
trigger.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, while the President's plan undoubtedly 
includes some recommendations worth considering, the facts are clear; 
Amtrak needs federal support to survive, just like highways, ports, and 
airlines. I am one of many Republicans in Congress eager to improve the 
safety, efficiency, and ridership of passenger rail. Putting Amtrak on 
the chopping block directly contradicts this goal. Dozens of reform 
proposals exist without jeopardizing the viability of Amtrak and they 
should be openly debated in Congress.

                          ____________________