OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

Date: June 29, 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Transportation

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Congressman Ron Packard, a former Member here, was a very strong supporter of Amtrak. He pushed it every year that he was chairman on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He also realized that we had to reform Amtrak.

If we do not push the Department of Defense to make changes, they will never do it. This week this body made several votes to send a message. Let me give you a good example. I think the total outlay to Saudi Arabia was $24,000, but they voted to cut off funding for Saudi Arabia. Why? It is a message to keep them moving in a right direction.

I read recently where if you took Amtrak from Florida to San Diego, the ticket is about $135, but the Federal subsidy for that is $477. What we are trying to do is send Amtrak a strong message that someway they have got to reform.

Sleeper cars, now, that trip from Florida to San Diego would take 71 hours. Someone that is a senior citizen is not going to sit in a chair for 71 hours. It costs $100 million a year, the food service. $50 million it loses. Let us offer it up for bid and privatize it and at least go some of these reforms. This particular amendment does the opposite. It allows Amtrak to go on without any message to do just as they have. They have even said that ridership is up. Well, then, let us make it profitable for them so we can make a bigger and better Amtrak instead of one that takes billions of dollars just in subsidies to fund.

I am not opposed to the subsidy. Look at the Metro here in Washington, D.C. It costs a lot of money. We subsidize it. But now put all that traffic on the highway and see what it costs with pollution, with extra drive time and so on.

Yes, we do need a cross-country Amtrak, but we definitely need to send them a message. That is why I oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov


Source
arrow_upward