On Dec. 20, 2001, Congress voted to halt the most recent attack on Amtrak which required it to draft a plan for its own liquidation — a burden placed on Amtrak by the Amtrak Reform Council’s Nov. 9 statement that "Amtrak has not made any significant progress toward operational self-sufficiency."

ARC’s declaration (probably illegal for several reasons) on Nov. 9 triggered the liquidation requirement — part of the 1997 Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act that gave Amtrak five years to "wean itself from federal operating subsidies" and created the Amtrak Reform Council "to monitor the railway’s progress." ARC concluded that Amtrak would fail to achieve self-sufficiency and voted 6 to 5, over the objections of the Secretary of Transportation, to require Amtrak to come up with a plan within 90 days for its "complete liquidation" while ARC had 90 days to write a plan for a restructured national rail system.

"Today a secretive band of anti-Amtrak ideologues launched a direct attack on our nation’s rail passenger transportation system," said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO-CIO, on Nov. 9, "when it voted to begin a 90-day countdown to the possible liquidation of Amtrak and the destruction of 25,000 jobs." Saying the vote was "unacceptable, unpatriotic and must be reversed," the AFL-CIO called on working families and all supporters of Amtrak to mobilize to reverse the ARC’s action and urged Congress and the White House to put ARC out of business in favor of a "responsible debate about the future of Amtrak and our national rail passenger system."

Last summer Rail Labor did strike an important blow to protect Amtrak from those seeking to privatize and dismantle America’s passenger rail system when the House and Senate each drastically reduced funding for ARC. Then funded at $750,000, ARC’s funding was slashed to $420,000 by the Senate and $450,000 by the House.

"Since its inception in 1997, ARC has not sought to provide objective assessments of Amtrak operations, its mission as envisioned by Congress. Rather, it has repeatedly recommended privatizing parts of Amtrak," said the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department at the time, while hailing the action of Congress.

On December 5 the TTD reported that the 2002 Transportation Appropriations Conference Report, which was passed by both the House and Senate, further slashed ARC’s funding by 70 percent to $225,000.

BMWE President Mac A. Fleming noted that "while Congress will ultimately decide whether to act on this liquidation plan, the ARC vote has the immediate effect of downgrading Amtrak’s credit rating and makes it nearly impossible for it to borrow at reasonable rates, since creditors are obviously aware that Amtrak may be liquidated. This action could cause Amtrak to declare bankruptcy."

Apparently that’s fine with Paul Weyrich, an ARC member chosen by Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) as one of his three appointees. Weyrich, a leader of the religious right who coined the phrase "moral majority," was "the architect of [the] finding that Amtrak will fail to achieve financial self-sufficiency by a December 2, 2002, deadline set by Congress," according to CNN.com on Nov. 27. Weyrich "is spearheading the effort to kill Amtrak, believing the best way to save passenger rail service is to do away with the national railway. ... He is determined to dismantle the railway and build a new entity from scratch," CNN.com said.

The 11 members of ARC met again on Dec. 14 to consider nine options "put together by staff" for breaking up and restructuring Amtrak and planned to deliver their report to Congress on Feb. 7, 2002, after this JOURNAL goes to print. The options being considered would take much or all of Amtrak’s authority and divide it among states or private companies, reported the Bureau of National Affairs.

On Dec. 19, anti-Amtrak Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL) told the BNA that he would introduce legislation calling for the liquidation of Amtrak. "We’re gonna hold their feet to the fire," he said.

"Mica is angered over a provision," the BNA reported, of the defense appropriations bill for 2002 that says no federal funds can be spent on a liquidation plan. The defense bill containing the provision was approved by Congress on Dec. 20 and thwarted the ARC attack launched on Nov. 9 by postponing and perhaps even eliminating, the requirement that Amtrak submit a liquidation plan to Congress.

"They may have gotten a one-year reprieve on liquidation ... but I’m going to keep the issue of liquidation alive because I don’t want them to worm their way out of reorganization," Mica said. He said his bill has the support of Amtrak-foes Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), House Majority Whip, and Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO). "An aide to Mica said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) also may sign on," reported the BNA.

To pay for Mica’s legislation, the $521 million Amtrak was appropriated in the fiscal 2002 transportation appropriations bill (HR 2299), signed into law by President Bush on Dec. 18, would be transferred to the Transportation Department, the BNA said.

The BNA also reported that the leader of the House Railroads Subcommittee, Rep. Jack Quinn (R-NY), an Amtrak supporter, stated he could not support Mica’s bill and was against liquidating Amtrak. "I believe the look of Amtrak has to change. It cannot continue in its present condition. But to simply make it go away ... I cannot agree with that."

Quinn also said he could not imagine a country without a national rail system, especially since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. "People are nervous about flying and you’re telling them you’re going to get rid of the rail system — that’s the wrong message to send," he said.

Even ARC Chairman Gilbert E. Carmichael said at the Dec. 14 meeting that at hearings around the country he learned of strong support for a national rail system. "America wants a national rail passenger system and they want it passionately," he said.

James L. Oberstar (D-MN), House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member, said he is "vigorously opposed" to liquidating Amtrak and called Mica "hostile to Amtrak." Instead of being liquidated, Oberstar said Amtrak should be provided with more money for rail improvements. "We need to upgrade those wretched freight tracks on which Amtrak has to operate," he said.

Earlier (in a statement released on Nov. 9, 2001) Oberstar said, "once again, the ARC has chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress and the needs of the American people. The tragic events of September 11^th made it clear that our nation needs passenger rail service to complement commercial aviation. This requires us to increase our investment and commitment to Amtrak and intercity passenger service — not dismantle it. The Council’s action was as unnecessary as it was unwise. Although nearly one-half of the Council Members recognized the inappropriateness of voting on this matter at this time, by one vote, rationality failed.

"The law specifically directs the ARC to take into account the level of funds made available to Amtrak to carry out its financial plan and to consider events, including national emergencies, over which Amtrak reasonably had no control. There is widespread agreement that Amtrak has been starved for capital over its entire lifetime [which officially began May 1, 1971] and the past few years were no exception — Amtrak receives only one-half of the funds authorized for its programs. And I think we would all agree that we are in a state of national emergency — one that has a significant transportation dimension.

"Congress continues to look for ways to invest in intercity rail passenger services, especially high-speed rail. Congress is working to invest in improving the safety and security of Amtrak operations. The ARC, once again, offers nothing positive to the debate over how to improve America’s passenger rail service.

"Even the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General, who had long resisted extending the date for Amtrak achieving self-sufficiency, has recognized that this is not the time to put in motion actions that will lead to reports for reorganizing or liquidating Amtrak. Amtrak, the IG said, needs to focus on improving safety and security. I couldn’t agree more.

"I am disturbed by reports that members of the Council expressly decided to take this precipitous action before their mandate was taken away. The Amtrak Reform Council should be concerned about the future of passenger rail and the mobility of the American people, not its own influence."

Echoing Oberstar and calling it "a bad idea at the worst possible time," Bill Hutchison, president of the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers (a nonprofit, educational organization founded in 1973), blasted the ARC’s decision as "an unconscionable example of poor timing and, worse, of pathetic self-interest. The Amtrak Reform Council acted as if it’s been living in a cave in Afghanistan since before Sept. 11. The timing is highly questionable. You have to wonder if the Council pulled the trigger now while it still had bullets in its gun."

With another year remaining before the ARC had to take action under the law, the ARC violated the statute, Hutchinson said, by failing to take into account, as required, "acts of God, national emergencies and other events beyond the reasonable control for Amtrak." He added that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a five-day shutdown of nationwide air travel and increased security procedures have put unprecedented demands on Amtrak which has eliminated 2,900 management positions since last summer, placing new burdens on the remaining staff.

"The Amtrak Reform Council’s vote is a naked attempt to kill Amtrak while the council still has the chance," Hutchinson added. "Shame on the Council for sticking their foot out and tripping up Amtrak when we need it now more than ever."

"The ARC, some members of Congress and others who decry Amtrak’s financial performance, conveniently forget that Amtrak has received just one percent of the federal transportation budget each year during its 30-year existence," Hutchinson said. "Under the 1997 Act, Congress was to provide Amtrak $1 billion in operating and capital funds per year for five years for investments in newer trains and facilities that would have allowed Amtrak to operate more efficiently. Instead, Congress has fallen short of its financial commitment by half.

"And the year-late delivery of high-speed Acela trains to Amtrak by Bombardier Corporation denied Amtrak much-needed revenue. The order for 20 Acela Express high-speed train sets was a cornerstone of Amtrak’s plan to become more efficient. The late delivery of Acelas is now the subject of a legal battle between the two parties."

With regard to the Council’s action, the National Association of Railroad Passengers said on Nov. 9 it was concerned "that at a time of national crisis — one directly related to intercity passenger transportation — Amtrak, whose resources already are stretched to the limit, now must find time to draft a plan within 90 days for its own liquidation. Additional staff time doubtless will be consumed dealing with potentially negative consequences of that task on its relationships with its lenders and perhaps even the willingness of customers to make long-term travel plans with Amtrak.

"NARP believes that the ground under the U.S. transportation establishment has shifted fundamentally — and favorably towards rail — as a result of September 11. In the past two months we have seen unprecedented editorial support for passenger rail and for Amtrak. [Editor’s Note: The BMWE can confirm the editorial support for passenger rail and for Amtrak and gives excerpts from four examples, two before and two after September 11, at the end of this article.]

"In October, ridership on Acela Express and Metroliners in the Northeast Corridor was 43% above a year ago and revenue growth was substantially greater. Ridership was 11% above plan. Sleeping-car occupancy rates and revenues on most routes was stronger than a year ago. Amtrak’s share of the total travel market likely rose, since airlines in October reported a 65% occupancy rate (down from a year ago) on flight schedules that most carriers had cut by 20%."

"The fundamental problem facing passenger rail," the NARP said, "is inadequate public funding in general, and, in particular, the lack of a federal program for partnering with states on improving tracks which would in turn improve the economic performance of trains (including long-distance trains) running on the various federally designated high speed corridors. We do not see an Amtrak reorganization as likely to solve that problem. Enactment of the High Speed Rail Investment Act and adequate annual appropriations for Amtrak are critical if the U.S. is to get the balanced transportation system we need to face the challenges of the new century."

BMWE in Amtrak’s 30-Year Battle for Survival

A documentation of Amtrak’s 30-year battle for survival and the BMWE’s constant efforts on behalf of national rail passenger service can be obtained just by skimming through BMWE JOURNALs for the last 30 years since Amtrak’s official beginning date of May 1, 1971. Clearly there is not enough space in this JOURNAL to print excerpts from the numerous articles over the years detailing the struggle for rail passenger service and Amtrak; there is, however, space to print excerpts from one of the first and one of the most current.

In the May 1971 BMWE JOURNAL, then President Harold C. Crotty clearly saw the future when he talked about the BMWE’s and Rail Labor’s efforts to improve Amtrak from the beginning.

"Widely referred to as beginning a ‘new era’ in American railroad passenger service, Amtrak is off to a start, despite the opposition of those of us who want an improved era, rather than just a new era of such service.

"When the idea of government-operated passenger service under the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (formerly called Railpax, now Amtrak, a contraction for ‘American’ and ‘track’) was conceived, a better end result might have been hoped for. Properly financed, and done on a bigger scale, Amtrak would connect all parts of the United States. It would offer safe, fast travel by rail to vast numbers of the public. At the same time it would help alleviate the national problems of highway and airline congestion and related environmental pollution.

"That may have been the dream, but it’s far from the reality.

"Amtrak’s single most immediate effect is that many travelers who could previously go by train to and from several states and hundreds of cities and towns can no longer do so. Where there were 285 intercity trains before, there were some 100 fewer trains after May 1, when Amtrak took over."

In discussing the opposition of BMWE and the rest of Rail Labor to the structure of Amtrak and their filing of a lawsuit to delay Amtrak’s operation of passenger service, President Crotty said:

"Our action in the courts sought an indefinite postponement of the May 1 transfer of passenger service from private ownership to government control. It took note of the fact that as Amtrak slashed passenger service, substantial cuts in railroad jobs would follow.

"The suit charged that the changeover to Amtrak may cost in excess of 26,000 jobs of railroad employes. It said that the protective arrangement set up by the U.S. Secretary of Labor provides for no advance notice and no negotiation with the unions. It said that about 80 percent of the affected employes would get no protection whatsoever. It said that the Labor Secretary’s protective conditions are ‘almost meaningless,’ ‘grossly deficient,’ and far less effective than the job protective conditions negotiated by individual unions and rail managements in the last decade."

President Crotty noted that many other groups wanted to delay the Amtrak start, including the National Association of Railroad Passengers which had worked for years to preserve rail passenger service and sought $100 million in extra Amtrak funds to expand its basic service network and the leading consumer spokesman, Ralph Nader, who complained that the Amtrak "cure," lopping off half the surviving intercity trains, was worse than the "disease" that has already weakened rail passenger service. (The BMWE and other rail unions unsuccessfully fought for more funds in 1970, when Amtrak was first conceived.)

In conclusion, President Crotty said "Amtrak then, as it is set up, can only delay temporarily the total extinction of meaningful American rail passenger service, while it ignores the overall needs of the traveling public and will cost the jobs of thousands of railroad workers.

"A sound national transport policy demands more than that. It requires more — not less — of the kind of efficient movement of people that only rail passenger transportation provides, and does so without further aggravating our national problems of congestion and pollution."

President Crotty’s recognition that Amtrak must be properly funded proved to be prophetic; for all of its existence Amtrak has had to provide national intercity rail passenger service on grossly inadequate federal subsidies.

Although Amtrak has more than lived up to the task of providing such intercity service, it has done so through the tremendous sacrifice of its organized work force and despite the constant political attacks of self-motivated, dishonest, right wing politicians and bureaucrats.

Thirty years later the message is the same. In the December 2001 JOURNAL, President Mac A. Fleming said in part:

"Once again the battle over funding Amtrak is starting to percolate and the preservation of tens of thousands of unionized jobs are once again on the line. Also at issue is the environment, national security and energy efficiency. It is time for Congress and the President to stop using Amtrak as a political football and provide a stable, dedicated source of funding to the most efficient rail passenger transportation system on the Planet Earth. ...

"Since its creation, Amtrak has been a major success, utilizing miserly federal subsidies to provide critical national rail passenger service. Costing the federal government between $30 and $40 billion since its creation, Amtrak obtains more percentage of its revenue from the fare box than any intercity rail passenger service in the world. This means that the U.S. government provides less subsidies for intercity rail passenger service than any other government in the industrialized world. The $30 to $40 billion the government has spent since 1970 is a minuscule percentage of what it has provided for roads, airports and the air traffic control system. ...

"But once again we are in for a legislative battle of monumental proportions in order to preserve Amtrak for the riding public, defend the security and national interests of the United States and protect our membership."

The American Public Wants Rail!

Let the Rails Save Our Roads

On May 23, 2001, Anita Geminetti of Natrona Heights, Pennsylvania wrote the BMWE and enclosed an article that she found "interesting and so very true." She suggested we run the article in the BMWE JOURNAL because she "appreciated the way the author compared, directly or indirectly, the methods by which other modes of transportation are subsidized. This was interesting in light of the recent Amtrak federal funding negotiations," she wrote.

"I live twenty minutes from Pittsburgh and my bus commute takes anywhere from one to one and a half hours each way," Ms. Geminetti said. "Most large city commutes are the same, if not worse. Commuter rail service is our best alternative to alleviate congestion and lessen commute time. As the article suggests, traffic becomes more of a nightmare even with the addition of more roads and airports."

"Commuter rail service benefits everyone, including the BMWE members whose livelihood is tied to the tracks. This brings me to a suggestion for a bumper sticker to promote rails and unions."

(INSERT DRAWING HERE)

The editorial Ms. Geminetti enclosed with her letter appeared in Automobile Magazine and was titled "Let the rails save our roads." The editorial also contained two photos of an Amtrak train with the caption — Amtrak’s Auto Train: 900 miles without traffic, road work, or food that starts with "Mc." Unfortunately, we do not know when the editorial was printed or who the author was. While we are unable to print the complete editorial as we would like, the following excerpts are still interesting.

"Build it, and they will come. And they’ll keep on coming. Long after they were supposed to stop," the editorial begins.

"Motorists in New York City have known this truism for almost a century. In the early days of the automobile, each time they built a new bridge over the East River to solve congestion problems on the existing crossings, traffic volume would reach 110 percent of capacity within days of the grand-opening festivities. More roads simply promoted more traffic. ...

"There’s an answer out there for those of us who want to preserve the thrill of the open road, however, and, forgive the heresy, the answer is not more roads. Sure, I’m for safer highways and fixing the roads we’ve already got. But there’s an even better idea we gearheads ought to be rallying around: trains.

"Yeah, yeah, I know, railroads won’t run without subsidies. Like automobiles and airplanes can? Of course they can’t. Or do you believe the airlines paid for your nearest international airport and the air traffic controllers who keep planes from colliding? And that philanthropists built the Interstates and that big oil companies pay to park the Seventh Fleet in the Persian Gulf to keep supply lines open as a favor to the American people? They don’t, bub. You do. Without picking the taxpayers’ pockets, every transportation system we’ve ever heard of since the heyday of the moccasin would wither and die. ...

"Our air traffic system is woefully overburdened and getting worse by the day, as are our highways. But what about our long-neglected rail network? For 250- to 300-mile intercity jaunts, the results are in — in those few places where it’s an option, it’s often faster and more convenient to take the train.

"And if money were invested in our rail infrastructure to bring it into the mid-twentieth century, rather than being left to languish in the nineteenth, it would be more competitive still. The rights of way and railroad beds are already there. The technology exists to allow train travel at speeds in excess of 300 mph. What are we waiting for?"

Running on the Railroad

"Here’s a refreshing change," said Tom Judge in the September 2001 issue of Railway Track and Structures. "A candidate for public office is actually running with a campaign slogan touting ‘More Trains!’ ... According to a press release, the RAIL NOW! Green Party’s Alan Levy (Woodbridge) called for ‘More Trains, Less Traffic’ as he submitted papers to the Board of Elections in order to run for the House of Delegates in Virginia.

"‘Rail increases the value of our businesses and homes,’ Levy said. ‘It’s safer. Rail cuts pollution. Rail has been neglected. We need RAIL NOW! I offer positive change. ...’"

"I’m not making fun of Mr. Levy. ... I want to make the point that more and more people are looking to railroads not as a problem, but as a solution to many problems. I’ve heard it said that the key to success in politics is to find out which way people want to go, then get out in front and lead them to where they want to go anyway.

"Lots of people, both Democrats and Republicans, are looking to rail transportation to free up some of the gridlock on our roads and at our airports. Passenger rail gets the most attention, but lots more people are expressing a desire to get trucks off the road and onto the tracks to free up highway space. ..."

A Comeback For Trains?

"Congress has voted to give [airlines] $15 billion in emergency relief and I don’t understand that. Railroads have been in financial trouble for 50 years. Why doesn’t Congress give railroads $15 billion," said CBS News Correspondent Andy Rooney in his weekly commentary on September 30, 2001.

"What ever happened to travel by train anyway?"

"This country is dotted with abandoned or little used railroad stations. Cute stores have moved in.

"In New York, they tore down the magnificent Pennsylvania Station. Michigan Central Station in Detroit, an architectural gem, was abandoned; its idle tracks rust away waiting to be boiled down.

"There are thousands of miles of empty railroad tracks running contiguously with crowded highways.

"Our heavy loads should be moved on steel rails instead of rubber tires on highways where trucks play accordion with the cars.

"There are 1,345,000 railway freight cars in the United States. Each one can carry several times as much cargo as the biggest truck.

"Using railroads would reduce our use of oil.

"It takes 1,500 gallons of fuel for a plane to fly from New York to Chicago with 100 people on board. A train with 1,000 people can make the same trip on fewer than 300 gallons.

"The United States is way behind in train travel as anyone knows who’s been to Europe or Japan. Trains everywhere are better, faster and more luxurious.

"There’s no greater feeling of luxury and satisfaction than being whisked 500 miles closer to your destination while you sleep on a fast-moving train.

"Trains are seldom delayed or cancelled. They run in sunshine or in snowstorm, oblivious to wind and water.

"If the government is going to give the airlines $15 billion, it ought to run the airlines. Or maybe jump-start travel by giving taxpayers $15 billion worth of tickets to go where they wanted how they wanted."

Untie Amtrak’s Hands

"I was scheduled to fly to Chicago on Sept. 13," begins an editorial in the Hartford Courant in Connecticut on November 26, 2001. "When it became clear that nobody was flying to Chicago so soon after the day of infamy, I had another idea. I called Amtrak, to inquire about the Lake Shore Limited. I’d drive to Springfield, hop on the train, snooze as I cruised across the heart of America and be at Union Station in plenty of time.

"Unfortunately, I was not the sole proprietor of this inspiration. The train was sold out for the next 11 days.

"Drat the luck for me, but a win for common sense. The events of Sept. 11 have illustrated, like nothing since perhaps World War II, the need for a modern and efficient railroad system in this country to complement our first-rate air and highway systems. With air travel challenged and highways crowded, people went looking for their old friend the train.

"Our response to this opportunity? Well, it may be to dissolve Amtrak.

"Congress passed a law four years ago saying Amtrak had to break even next year and created a bipartisan commission, the Amtrak Reform Council, to oversee the effort. The council determined on Nov. 9 that Amtrak will not meet its fall 2002 [Dec. 2] deadline for running in the black.

"That decision requires that Amtrak draw up plans for its own liquidation.

"In one sense, the timing is stupendously unfortunate. ... Amtrak is carrying more than 60,000 passengers a day, 22 million a year. In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak carries enough people to fill 121 flights a day.

"On the other hand, the timing is excellent. Government cannot allow the service to be stopped. Thus, we need to reach a decision on the best way to provide the service. ...

"As Steve Goddard sees it, Amtrak started behind the eight ball and has stayed there for one fundamental reason, having more to do with the tracks than the trains.

"Goddard, a Hartford lawyer who’s also a transportation writer and activist, said the government pays for the infrastructure of the air and highway systems, but expects the railroads to pay for their own infrastructure. Somehow, it’s become a given that highways are essential spending, while railroad tracks are an extra expense.

"So, the federal highway expenditure for 2001, $33.5 billion, is passed with barely a yawn, while the politicians scream about government waste and the evils of godless liberalism because Amtrak is $3 billion in debt. ...

"The point here, Goddard said, is that national rail passenger service doesn’t have to make money; it doesn’t anywhere in the industrialized world. It throws off so many benefits to the economy that it makes up for the loss — just like the highways.

"Amtrak’s been a target for conservative demagoguery for Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and that ilk. Subsidizing transportation to improve commerce is actually a good conservative issue. ...

"There’s no reason why this country shouldn’t have the best rail system in the world, especially now that the need for it has been so dramatically demonstrated. We’re involved in a war that is significantly rooted in our need for foreign oil. Good intercity and commuter rail service could vastly reduce our dependence, without chewing up the Alaskan wilderness."