WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With Amtrak's future at stake, Congress may be finding that its previous attempt to turn the passenger railroad around had unintended consequences, according to a wire service report.

A 1997 law gave Amtrak five years to end its reliance on operating subsidies from the government. Amtrak sought to meet that goal by devoting its limited funds to expensive projects that seemed to promise profit, such as its high-speed Northeast train, according to Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead.

That meant fewer dollars went to basic maintenance in the busy Northeast Corridor. And Amtrak borrowed money to buy new cars and locomotives, piling up debt.

"Every law that you pass has two reactions: the one you want, and the one you don't want,'' said Gilbert Carmichael, chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council, a congressional advisory panel.

Amtrak President George Warrington told Congress on several occasions that the corporation was "fixated'' on achieving self-sufficiency. He said the process forced the company to become more disciplined.

But this month, in a dramatic plea for more federal money, Warrington called self-sufficiency "impractical, inappropriate and destructive'' given Amtrak's backlog of needed improvements and its determination not to shut down unprofitable trains.

Now, Congress is ready once again to take up the future of Amtrak and passenger rail.

The House Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing Thursday on a report by the advisory panel that calls for the breakup of Amtrak and the introduction of competition into passenger rail.

Adding to the urgency, Warrington has warned that Amtrak will cancel long-distance routes unless it receives $1.2 billion in the 2003 budget year, which begins in October. President Bush has proposed $521 million.

Mead, the transportation department's watchdog, recently reported that Amtrak chose to spend much of its capital funds from the government on its high-speed Acela Express service in the Northeast Corridor. That project received about $900 million from 1998 to 2001.

Additional money went to refurbish existing equipment and stations to promote the Acela identity.

Mead said the money should have been used to reduce a $3 billion backlog of "minimum needs'' maintenance. Because those funds went elsewhere, he said, Amtrak delays in the Northeast -- as measured in total minutes -- rose nearly 75 percent between 1998 and 2001.

Also in pursuit of self-sufficiency, Amtrak borrowed money to buy new equipment. That freed up federal funds but added debt. Principal payments on the debt are expected to grow to $126 million in 2005 from $64 million in 2001.

The requirement that Amtrak wean itself from operating subsidies originated in a 1997 compromise in Congress.

Congress provided $2.3 billion that had previously been promised to Amtrak for capital improvements. But it also ordered that, in five years, Amtrak "shall operate without federal operating grant funds.''

That period ends Dec. 2 but the congressional panel has determined Amtrak will fall short of fulfilling the order.

Amtrak did increase ridership and revenue since 1997 but not by enough. The railroad was roughly $335 million shy of self-sufficiency in 1997; this year it is about $217 million short.

Last year, Amtrak mortgaged parts of Penn Station in New York -- its most important asset -- to raise $300 million in operating funds.

Bush's budget message, released last week, called that move "a financial absurdity.''

Amtrak's chairman, former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, said self-sufficiency would have been achievable had Congress set up a dedicated source of capital funds for rail in 1997.