WASHINGTON — Congressman James L. Oberstar (D-MN) today released the following statement in response to the Bush Administration’s long-awaited plan for the restructuring of Amtrak. Congressman Oberstar, ranking minority member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.
“For many months we have awaited the Administration’s plan for the future direction of Amtrak. Time and again we have heard that the vision would be revealed ‘any day now.’ Finally, after months of delay, we have the Administration’s model for the future of rail passenger service in America. It was not worth the wait.
The Administration’s proposal is little more than a rehash of the widely discredited proposals of the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC). The Administration’s proposals: separate ownership of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure for operations; allowing entities other than Amtrak to compete for franchises to operate service over potentially profitable routes; and replacing the current national network with regional systems that shift the costs to the states are all ideas put forth by the ARC. The Administration is apparently placing its trust in the magic of privatization to solve Amtrak’s problems. The ARC proposals missed the point when they were advanced six months ago. Time has not transformed them into valid solutions.
Amtrak’s problem has one root cause — money! It needs capital. From the outset, the Corporation has been on a starvation diet. Its opponents insinuate that successive Amtrak managements have somehow conspired to misappropriate funds and not run a profitable operation. The truth is that a succession of hardworking and dedicated management teams could not do the impossible — i.e., operate intercity rail passenger service in America on a for-profit basis. Even under more favorable conditions, no nation in the world has successfully operated intercity passenger trains on a for-profit basis. But many in Congress have insisted on the impossible, and Amtrak’s previous leaders have tried to demonstrate progress toward this illusive and ill-advised goal.
Amtrak’s immediate need is more than $200 million to meet current operating expenses through the end of the fiscal year. Normally, Amtrak could have accessed the capital markets, but given the uncertainties created by the ARC report and the Administration’s delay in releasing its plan, Amtrak’s auditor was unable to classify Amtrak as a going concern, thereby cutting off its access to the capital markets. In effect, the Administration has created the very crisis it now purports to address through its ‘loan guarantees with strings’ approach to the problem. This is not acceptable.
Now we have new leadership at Amtrak that has abandoned the long-standing defensive practice of telling Congress what Congress wants to hear. David Gunn, the new President of Amtrak, has told Congress what is needed if we want to have decent and reliable intercity passenger rail service in this nation, and he is committed to achieving this result without the dismantling of Amtrak suggested by the Administration’s proposal. We should heed his advice and give him and his team a chance.
Amtrak’s current need should be met through a supplemental appropriation with no strings attached. Congress should then enact H.R. 4545 to reauthorize Amtrak at the $1.2 billion level that Amtrak says it needs to operate the national network in FY2003. In addition, the bill provides $400 million to address the life safety needs of the tunnels serving New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., and $375 million to begin addressing Amtrak’s security needs.
On May 8, 2002, the Subcommittee on Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure favorably reported the bill to the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a unanimous voice vote.
Next year, we should reexamine Amtrak and work with the new management team to determine what is truly needed to develop and operate a quality intercity rail passenger system in America. If structural or organizational changes are desirable, they should be undertaken in that context — not in response to the current Administration/ARC-created crisis.”