In Support of Passenger Rail

IN SUPPORT OF PASSENGER RAIL -- (Extensions of Remarks - March 03, 2005)

SPEECH OF
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.

http://thomas.loc.gov