Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 417. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to support any Amtrak route whose costs exceed
2 times its revenues, as based on the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Five Year Plan
from May 2013.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, once again I stand up in a continuing
theme of what I believe fiscally responsible Members who come to the
floor should look at--the operation of Amtrak.
[[Page H5231]]
Today, once again, I come to the floor to offer my ideas about how we
can help, especially during troubling financial times for the American
taxpayer with our Federal Government, that we can look at and find ways
to where we work with Amtrak.
Years ago I met with the chairman of the board, who openly
acknowledged that there were challenges that Amtrak faced, not just
safety issues, but many other issues that dealt with their financial
integrity.
I told him I would continue doing these kinds of amendments, and he
considered this, in a sense, an opportunity for the people who provide
money, meaning the taxpayers of the United States, to have a say about
the operation of how their money would be used. That is the same spirit
that I am here on the floor today.
Madam Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for Amtrak
routes that have total direct costs that are more than twice the
revenue that they produce. That means, if the cost is twice as much as
the revenue, I think that that should be a solid reason why someone
should consider eliminating those routes.
They are all over the place, and I believe that Amtrak continues to
provide these, accept government money, and they don't give two flips
about what we think about the use of the taxpayer money. And so I think
it is worth our time to be here.
Every single long-distance route that Amtrak provides over 400 miles
in length operates at a loss every single month. If they have got a
route that is more than 400 miles, I mean, we are helping them out
here, Madam Chairman.
We are helping out Amtrak, and we are saying to them, if you have got
something more than 400 miles, you are operating at a loss.
Now we are saying, however, if it is twice the cost of the revenue,
that is what we would like to have you look at. And I think that it
would be an argument for us, as a provider of money, to say, look, we
think that you should help people. Maybe when they call in to you to
take Amtrak, if it is one of those routes, why don't you suggest to
them that they fly aircraft, that they take a bus, that they do
something where the American taxpayer is not on the line.
The bottom line is, if you combine seven routes that are taken in
this parameter, the American taxpayer pays $332.8 million for this
subsidy. $332 million is maybe not a lot of money to Amtrak, but that
is a darn lot amount of money for the American people to be putting
into Amtrak to have them waste.
I believe it is a waste. I believe it could be not only better
allocated, but utilized in a better way, like shifting people who are
coming to you--let's take an alternative. Let's maybe take an airplane.
It is clear that the government subsidizes rail service on Amtrak,
and it does not make economic sense that they take advantage of that.
So, Madam Chairman, it is real simple. This is an opportunity for the
people who represent taxpayers to simply come forth and say, let's have
a vote on this, that we believe that that is too much money. 332
million bucks should not be used on these seven routes, and that is why
I am here today.
So, Madam Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support what I think
is a commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
While I support the efforts and reforms to move Amtrak to operate in a
more efficient and effective manner, I must oppose this amendment.
I appreciate very much the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, and
his raising this issue. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate seven
Amtrak routes and eliminate rail service to dozens of cities and towns
of all sizes across America.
Just to list, those would be California Zephyr, which goes from
Chicago to Emeryville, California, which happens to go through Iowa;
Cardinal Hoosier line, which is Chicago to New York; Coast Star Light,
from Seattle to Los Angeles; the Crescent, from New York City to New
Orleans; Silver Star, from New York City to Miami; Southwest Chief,
from Chicago to Los Angeles; and the Sunset Limited, from Los Angeles
to New Orleans.
{time} 1745
Again, I appreciate very much what the gentleman is trying to do. I
just think we need to work on efficiency at Amtrak.
We have been trying very, very hard, through all of our hearings and
through our contact with Amtrak, to get efficiency and to modernize and
to try to get them to a profitable state; but unfortunately, I must
oppose this amendment, just because of the vast impact it would have on
so many people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Madam Chair, I also agree with the chairman
for the reasons he stated.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would dismantle Amtrak,
the only resemblance of a rail system that we have in this Nation.
Obviously, we need to work with them, so that Amtrak becomes more
efficient, but this amendment would dismantle it, and for that reason,
I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
