Order Code RL33492
Amtrak: Budget
and Reauthorization
Updated April 10, 2007
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Amtrak: Budget and Reauthorization
Summary
Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to provide intercity passenger railroad
service. It operates approximately 44 routes over 22,000 miles of track, 97% of
which is owned by freight rail companies. It runs a deficit each year, and requires
federal assistance to cover operating losses and capital investment. Without a yearly
federal grant to cover operating losses, Amtrak would not survive as presently
configured. The crux of the public policy issue facing Congress has been succinctly
stated by the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG): “To create
a new model for intercity passenger rail, a comprehensive reauthorization that
provides new direction and adequate funding is needed. The problem with the
current model extends beyond funding – there are inadequate incentives for Amtrak
to provide cost-effective service; state-of-good-repair needs are not being adequately
addressed; and states have insufficient leverage in determining service quality
options, in part because Amtrak receives Federal rail funds, not the states.”
During the last three Congresses, Amtrak policy was stalemated and no
consensus could be reached on what kind of passenger rail system to fund. Congress
failed to endorse Amtrak’s strategy of maintaining its full current network while
restoring its infrastructure to a state of good repair. In the 109th Congress, the
Administration and Amtrak had presented proposals for “reform.”
Appropriations. For FY2007, Amtrak is funded through a continuing
resolution (P.L. 110-5, enacted February 15, 2007) that provides the same amount as
Amtrak received in FY2006: $1.294 billion. For FY2008, the Administration has
requested $800 million for Amtrak and $100 million in state-matching capital grants.
The President’s budget request also calls on Amtrak to produce a competition plan
that identifies multiple opportunities for public and private entities to perform core
Amtrak functions, including the operation of trains. Amtrak has requested $1.53
billion for FY2008.
Reauthorization. Amtrak’s authorization expired in December 2002.
Reauthorization issues in the 110th Congress include Amtrak’s funding level, the size
of its network, the introduction of competition for routes, and Amtrak restructuring.
As Congress once again considers Amtrak reauthorization, the range of options for
passenger rail include (1) providing higher levels of funding to support an expanded
passenger rail system; (2) providing funding for operating and maintaining the
current system; (3) focusing available resources on providing service only to those
corridors that can be justified on economic grounds; (4) reducing Amtrak funding
and eliminating much of the present passenger rail network; (5) eliminating funding
for Amtrak and reorganizing passenger rail service in the United States. Various
combinations of the above options are also possible. Senators Frank R. Lautenberg
and Trent Lott introduced an Amtrak reauthorization bill, the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2007 (S. 294) on January 16, 2007. This report
will be updated as developments warrant.

---

Contents
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Federal Oversight of Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Amtrak Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

Amtrak: Budget
and Reauthorization
Background and Analysis
Amtrak — officially, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation — is the
nation’s only provider of intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak is structured as a
private company, but virtually all its shares are held by the United States Department
of Transportation (DOT). Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to maintain a
minimum level of intercity passenger rail service, while relieving the railroad
companies of the financial burden of providing that money-losing service. Although
created as a for-profit corporation, Amtrak, like intercity passenger rail operators in
other countries, has not been able to make a profit. During the last 35 years, federal
assistance to Amtrak has amounted to approximately $30 billion.1
Amtrak’s approximately 19,000 employees operate trains and maintain its
infrastructure. The company operates approximately 44 routes over 21,000 miles of
track. Most of that track is owned by freight rail companies; Amtrak owns about 625
route miles of track.2 The section it owns — the Northeast Corridor (NEC) —
includes some of the most heavily used segments of track in the nation. Amtrak “is
distinctly a minority user on certain portions of the NEC. By far, the greatest volume
of NEC traffic is represented by” commuter and freight trains.3 Amtrak operates
corridor routes (covering distances under 400 miles) and long-distance routes (over
400 miles in length). Some of Amtrak’s corridor routes are supported in part by
assistance from the states they serve. Amtrak also operates commuter service under
contract with state and local commuter authorities in various parts of the country.
Although Amtrak’s FY2005-FY2009 Strategic Plan calls for more than $8
billion in federal assistance over five years, Congress has thus far declined to provide
the requested funding. Amtrak’s annual appropriation has been $1.2 billion since
FY2003, enough to keep the system operating, but not enough to prevent the deferral
of some significant maintenance projects. Although short of the funding required to
accomplish Amtrak’s strategic vision, Amtrak has resisted reorganizing the system.
According to the DOT IG, Amtrak would need about $2 billion a year to restore the
system to a state-of-good-repair and develop corridor service or $1.4 billion simply
1 GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to Maximize Public
Benefits from Federal Expenditures, GAO-07-15, November 2006, p. 11.
2 Amtrak. National Fact Sheet, September 2006.
3 Amtrak. Annual Report to Congress. Feb. 17, 2005. p. 3.

---

CRS-2
to keep the system from falling into further disrepair.4 More fundamentally, the DOT
IG has stated that a new federal intercity passenger rail strategy is needed:
The current model for providing intercity passenger service continues to produce
financial instability and poor service quality. Despite multiple efforts over the
years to change Amtrak’s structure and funding, we have a system that limps
along, is never in a state-of-good-repair, awash in debt, and perpetually on the
edge of collapse. In the end, Amtrak has been tasked to be all things to all
people, but the model under which it operates leaves many unsatisfied.5
The President’s FY2006 budget proposal requested no money for Amtrak. The
Administration did request $360 million for the Surface Transportation Board to
support commuter rail services that depend on Amtrak, in the event that Amtrak
ceased operations during FY2006: “With no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter
bankruptcy, which would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and
the reorganization of the railroad through bankruptcy proceedings.”6 While the
Administration had issued veto threats against the FY2006 DOT appropriations bills
that provided funds for Amtrak without significant reforms to Amtrak’s structure and
operations, the President signed a $1.315 billion appropriation for Amtrak (H.R. 3058;
P.L. 109-115). While the Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008, it continues to seek major changes in the organizational
structure of intercity passenger rail service in this country (see below).
On November 3, 2005, the GAO released a report that was highly critical of
Amtrak’s management and performance.7 On November 9, 2005, Amtrak’s President
and CEO, David Gunn, was fired by Amtrak’s Board of Directors. Gunn was opposed
to some of the more far reaching restructuring proposals sought by the Administration
and the Amtrak Board, such as splitting the infrastructure component and the
operating component on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) into two separate entities. On
September 28, 2006 Amtrak’s new CEO, Alex Kummant, testified before the House
Railroads Subcommittee that he was committed to operating a national system of
trains and that he believed long-distance trains were an important part of the nation’s
transportation network.8 He also testified that the fastest growing service was in rail
corridors between city pairs of 300-500 miles and that developing these corridors was
going to be the driving force of Amtrak’s future.
4 Statement of Mark Dayton, DOT IG, before the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing, and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies, Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak, Mar. 16, 2006,
CC-2006-026, p. 11.
5 Dayton, Statement, Mar. 16, 2006, p. 3.
6 Budget of the United States, FY2006. p. 243.
7 GAO, Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Actions to Improve Efficiency,
Effectiveness, and Accountability, GAO-06-145, October 2005.
8 Testimony of Alex Kummant, President and CEO of Amtrak, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Sept. 28, 2006.

---

CRS-3
Federal Oversight of Amtrak
Congress has included provisions in Amtrak’s recent appropriations, beginning
in FY2003 (P.L. 108-7; 117 STAT 11), intended to bring greater transparency to
Amtrak’s finances and to increase DOT’s control over Amtrak’s use of its
appropriation. Amtrak is required to submit a Strategic Plan to Congress, updated
annually, and is prohibited from making expenditures not programmed in the Strategic
Plan without advance notice to Congress. Amtrak is also required to submit a
monthly financial statement to Congress. Also, Congress changed the way Amtrak
receives its funding; the funding no longer goes directly to Amtrak, but is allocated
to the Secretary of Transportation, who makes quarterly grants to Amtrak. Amtrak is
required to submit grant applications to DOT for each route to receive this funding.
Finances
Amtrak runs a deficit of over a billion dollars each year. Virtually all of
Amtrak’s 44 or so routes lose money but the long-distance routes lose the most.9
According to the DOT IG, “in 2004, long-distance trains cumulatively incurred
operating losses of more than $600 million (excluding interest and depreciation).”10
By his calculation, eliminating long-distance service will reduce operating losses by
about $300 million, far too little to make Amtrak profitable. In congressional
testimony, the DOT IG stated that long distance trains accounted for only 15% of total
intercity rail ridership and that 77% of long-distance train passengers traveled along
only portions of the routes, not end-to-end trips. Trips mostly ranged from 500-700
miles, slightly longer than corridor trips.11 The IG estimated that Amtrak could realize
“annual operating savings of between $75 million and $158 million, and an additional
$79 million in planned annual capital expenditures that could be avoided” by
eliminating the highly-subsidized sleeper class service from its long-distance trains.12
Sleeper class service includes a sleeping room and prepaid meals in the train’s dining
car; coach class passengers on long-distance trains sleep in their seats on overnight
trips, and usually buy food in the train’s lounge car. On October 10, 2006, the DOT
IG reported that Amtrak has begun restructuring sleeper class service and expects to
save up to $20 million in FY2007 from this restructuring.13
9 Only Amtrak’s signature ‘high-speed’ service on the Northeast Corridor, the Acela, and
its companion Metroliner service, consistently earn more than their operating costs.
However, the annual maintenance cost of the Northeast Corridor dwarfs the operating profit
generated by Acela and Metroliner service.
10 Testimony of Kenneth Mead, DOT IG, Reauthorization of Intercity Passenger Rail and
Amtrak, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, Apr. 21, 2005, p. 6.
11 Ibid.
12 DOT IG. Analysis of Cost Savings on Amtrak’s Long-Distance Services. CR-2005-068.
July 22, 2005. p. 2, 9.
13 DOT IG, Fourth Quarterly Report on Cost-Savings Accrued by Amtrak Operational
Reform, Oct. 10, 2006, CC-2006-068, p. 9.

---

CRS-4
In addition to its annual deficit, Amtrak has major liabilities due to deferred
maintenance and accumulated debt. Lacking money to complete all its capital repair
and maintenance projects, Amtrak has deferred many maintenance projects. This has
led the DOT IG to observe that Amtrak’s continued deferral of maintenance increases
the risk of a major failure on its system. Amtrak has an estimated $6 billion in
backlogged capital maintenance needs, of which about $4 billion is needed on the
NEC.14 These include replacement of aging bridges, signal equipment, and catenary
(the power source for the Northeast Corridor trains), improvements to tunnels and
track, repair of wrecked equipment, and overhaul of aging equipment. The IG has
criticized some of the capital spending choices Amtrak has made, such as refurbishing
sleeper cars instead of replacing aging bridges. Amtrak’s then president, David Gunn,
in a October 4, 2004 letter to the DOT IG, wrote: “Management agrees with a number
of conclusions reached in your report.... Deferred capital investment has reached
critical levels and continued deferral brings Amtrak closer to a major failure
somewhere in the system. We are playing Russian roulette.”15 The Amtrak Reform
Council and the DOT IG have both estimated that Amtrak requires around $1.5 - $2
billion in federal operating and capital support annually.16 This is a higher level of
federal funding than Amtrak has ever consistently received.
In recent years Amtrak has stopped borrowing, trimmed its workforce, and cut
its expenses, while at the same time achieving increases in ridership. However, the
cuts in expenses have been small relative to Amtrak’s annual deficit, and increases in
ridership have been relatively modest as well. In this context, the DOT IG has
observed that “it is difficult to see how Amtrak can achieve further reductions within
its Federal operating subsidy without addressing state-supported routes, route
restructuring, and labor contracts.”17
Amtrak’s internal options for significantly reducing its annual deficit in the short
term are limited. Its two major cost categories are the operating losses of the long-
distance trains and maintenance costs of the Northeast Corridor. Reducing the size
of its system could, in the long run, significantly reduce Amtrak’s deficit and the long-
run cost to the Federal Government, although Amtrak would still run a short-term
deficit even if it eliminated all its long-distance trains, because of severance payments
to employees. Additionally, the costs of maintaining the Northeast Corridor would
remain, whatever the fate of long-distance service. Amtrak interprets 49 U.S.C. 24701
to require it to provide service nationwide, which it takes to mean service that spans
the nation, rather than service in different parts of the nation. Thus, Amtrak is
14 GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to Maximize
Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures, GAO-07-15, November 2006, p. 18.
15 DOT IG. Assessment Report, November 2004, Appendix, Management Comments. p. 29.
16 The Amtrak Reform Council was created by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
of 1997 to recommend improvements to Amtrak and to draw up a new policy for intercity
passenger rail service. While acknowledging the structural aspects of Amtrak’s deficit, both
the Reform Council and the DOT IG have also been critical of Amtrak’s management, as
have the Government Accountability Office and other observers.
17 DOT IG, Fourth Quarterly Report on Cost-Savings Accrued by Amtrak Operational
Reform, Oct. 10, 2006, CC-2006-068, p. 10.

---

CRS-5
unlikely to eliminate or restructure long-distance routes without explicit direction
from Congress. Many Members of Congress continue to support a nationwide Amtrak
network.
Although Amtrak’s ridership has grown slightly from FY2005 to FY2006,
Amtrak’s on-time performance has declined, due at least in part to the postponement
of maintenance work, each year – from 74.1% in FY2003 to 67.8% in FY2006.
Amtrak ridership increased by 276,000 passengers (from 24.031 million to 24.307
million) from FY2005 to FY2006, but declined by 747,000 passengers between
FY2004, when ridership was over 25 million, and FY2006. It appears unlikely that
Amtrak could increase its revenues enough to eliminate its deficits. Total passenger
and non-passenger revenues increased by $130 million from FY2005 to FY2006, but
only increased by $140 million from FY2004 to FY2006. Amtrak has narrowed its
operating loss by $61 million, from $1.221 billion in FY2005 to $1.160 billion in
FY2006. Its cash operating loss (which excludes interest and depreciation) narrowed
from $584 million to $545 million.18
Appropriations
For FY2007, Amtrak is funded through a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5,
enacted February 15, 2007) that provides the same amount that Amtrak received in
FY2006: $1.294 billion.
The President’s FY2008 budget for Amtrak requests $800 million: $500 million
in capital and debt service grants and $300 million in efficiency incentive grants. As
in prior years, these grants would be administered through the Department of
Transportation rather than provided directly to Amtrak. In addition, the budget
requests $100 million for a new state-matching capital grant program. Under this
program, a state or states could apply for these grants for up to 50% of the total cost
of a capital project, provided that the project is on a route that requires no operating
subsidy or the state or states are willing to provide the operating subsidy. The project
must also be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan at the time
of application. The President’s budget request also calls on Amtrak to produce a
competition plan that identifies multiple opportunities for public and private entities
to perform core Amtrak functions, including the operation of trains. The competition
plan is to be completed within 30 days of enactment of the FY2008 appropriations act
and implemented beginning in 2008 after approval by the Secretary of Transportation.
The request also prohibits any federal subsidies from being spent on food and
beverage service.19
For FY2008, Amtrak is requesting $1.53 billion, which includes $760 million for
capital spending, $485 million for operating costs, and $285 million for debt service.20
18 Amtrak. Monthly Financial Report, September 2006 and September 2005, various tables.
Data in these reports are unaudited.
19 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 – Appendix, pp. 821-823.
20 see Amtrak, Fiscal 2008 Grant and Legislative Request, Feb. 15, 2007. Available on
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
However, Amtrak’s FY2008 request, which was formulated before its FY2007
appropriation was finalized, is based on the assumption that it will have an FY2007
budget of $1.45 billion. Amtrak’s budget request states that it is “working closely
with states to transition decisionmaking, and ultimately funding responsibility, on all
corridor routes from Amtrak to states.”21 Amtrak also agrees with the President’s
request for $100 million in state-matching capital grants.
Amtrak Reauthorization
Amtrak’s previous authorization expired in December 2002. The Amtrak
Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134; 111 Stat. 2570) authorized
Amtrak for the period December 1997 through December 2002. It required that
Amtrak operate without federal operating assistance after 2002; this was not
accomplished. Since then, reauthorization of Amtrak has been stalled by
disagreement over the future of U.S. passenger rail policy. Although numerous bills
were introduced in the 108th and 109th Congresses and various approaches have been
advanced, Congress has thus far been unwilling either to provide Amtrak with the
level of funding that it has requested or to require an Amtrak restructuring that would
be consistent with the level of funding that it has been willing to provide. Since 2002,
Congress has essentially reached a stalemate with respect to Amtrak. During the 108th
and 109th Congresses, it was unable to reauthorize Amtrak or to reach a consensus on
what kind of passenger rail system it would be willing to fund. It failed to endorse
Amtrak’s strategy of maintaining its full current network while restoring its
infrastructure to a state of good repair or to provide the funding that would have
allowed that strategy to be executed by Amtrak.
As Congress once again considers Amtrak reauthorization, the range of options
for passenger rail include (1) providing higher levels of funding to support an
expanded passenger rail system; (2) providing funding for operating and maintaining
the current system; (3) focusing available resources on providing service only to those
corridors that can be justified on economic grounds; (4) reducing Amtrak funding and
eliminating much of the present passenger rail network; (5) eliminating funding for
Amtrak and reorganizing passenger rail service in the United States. Although various
combinations of the above options are possible, the DOT IG has concluded that the
‘status quo’ option is unsustainable and that federal funding for Amtrak of between
$1.4 billion and $1.5 billion would be necessary to prevent cuts in service, but would
not be enough to restore the system to a state-of-good-repair nor permit investment in
new corridor development. In regard to Amtrak reauthorization, the DOT IG urged
Congress to consider the following three points: (1) without competition, Amtrak has
few incentives, other than the threat of budget cuts or elimination, for cost control; (2)
states rather than Amtrak should decide where and how intercity passenger rail service
is provided; and (3) the federal government must be willing to provide adequate
20 (...continued)
Amtrak’s website, [http://www.amtrak.com].
21 20 Ibid., p. 3.

---

CRS-7
funding (but not directly to Amtrak) to bring the infrastructure into a state-of-good-
repair.22
In the 110th Congress, Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Trent Lott introduced
an Amtrak reauthorization bill, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2007 (S. 294) on January 16, 2007. This bill would authorize a total of $3.3 billion
for fiscal years 2007 through 2012 in operating grants to be administered by the DOT
to Amtrak and $6.3 billion in capital grants over the same years. Of the $6.3 billion
in capital grants, a certain percentage of this amount, ranging from 3% in FY2007 to
33% in FY2012, would be directed to states rather than to Amtrak. The bill would
also allow states to use operators other than Amtrak to provide rail service on
particular routes, thus potentially opening up competition for Amtrak. The bill creates
a capital match program for a state or group of states for the purpose of providing new
or improved intercity rail service. The federal share of this program would be 80%.
During the 109th Congress, the Bush Administration introduced a proposal, the
Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act (H.R. 1713 in the 109th Congress) that would
restructure Amtrak, splitting it into three functionally independent entities: (1) a
corporate entity that would oversee Amtrak restructuring and manage residual
responsibilities, including specifically Amtrak’s legal right of access to other
railroads; (2) a pure passenger rail operating company; and (3) an infrastructure
management company. That bill would have provided for the establishment of an
interstate compact to operate the Northeast Corridor. Members of the proposed
compact included all of the states and the District of Columbia that constitute the
NEC. The proposal would have also given states greater decision-making authority
with respect to provision of rail service and capital improvements; it also would have
required a state matching contribution (of 50%) for capital projects that qualify under
planning and other criteria for federal assistance. The bill also would have phased out
operating subsidies for long-distance trains, opened routes to competition, and
authorized buyouts for current employees. The Administration bill called for an
annual appropriation of “such sums as necessary” to accomplish the reforms specified
in the bill. At a February 2007 hearing on Amtrak, Federal Railroad Administrator,
Joseph H. Boardman, reiterated the Administration’s plan to restructure Amtrak and
stated that “our overall assessment of S. 294 is that it does not include enough
meaningful reforms.”23

Amtrak’s proposal, issued in April 2005, outlines a series of initiatives that
would leave Amtrak as a single integrated entity. Unlike the Administration proposal,
the Northeast Corridor infrastructure would not be split from operations. Amtrak has
also proposed state matching contributions for capital projects, but unlike the
Administration’s 50/50 match, Amtrak recommends a state match of 20%, with a
22 Statement of Mark Dayton, DOT IG, before the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing, and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies, Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak, Mar. 16, 2006,
CC-2006-026, pp. 9-10.
23 Testimony of Joseph H. Boardman, Federal Railroad Administration, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Subcommittee Hearing on S. 294. Feb. 27, 2007.

---

CRS-8
federal contribution making up the remaining 80%. In terms of long-distance routes,
Amtrak “continues to believe that these trains play a valuable role, including [1]
serving as a foundation of a future rail development program; [2] forming the basis
for, and connections to, emerging state-supported corridors; and [3] providing an
important transportation link for many under-served rural communities and regions
across the country.”24 To achieve this, Amtrak is requesting continuing “limited”
federal operating and equipment support. Amtrak’s initiative also includes a pilot
project on one state-supported route by 2007. Amtrak has stated that it “would
cooperate fully in providing any requested services — but those services would be
provided on a full cost basis consistent with any future competitive environment for
rail services.”25 Amtrak has also requested “labor flexibility,” which would require all
intercity passenger rail operators be subject to the same labor law; allow Amtrak’s
labor contracts to terminate at expiration; and transition all new intercity passenger
rail employees out of the Railroad Retirement system into Social Security, with a
possible 401(k) option. Amtrak has also requested federal funding for debt service
payments or the elimination of Amtrak’s debt burden. In its FY2008 budget request,
Amtrak states that a new multi-year strategic plan will be finalized in the spring of
2007.26

Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents
United States House of Representatives. Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads. New Hands on the Amtrak Throttle.
September 28, 2006.
— —.Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads.
Current Governance Issues at Amtrak. November 15, 2005.
——.Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary and District of Columbia.
Fiscal FY2006 Appropriations: Federal Railroad Administration. April 27,
2005.
——. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads.
Amtrak Food and Beverage Operations. June 9, 2005.
——. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads.
Amtrak Reform Proposals. September 21, 2005.
United States Senate. Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.
FY2008 Budget for Amtrak. February 28, 2007.
24 Amtrak. Amtrak Strategic Reform Initiatives and FY06 Grant Request. April 2005. p. 25.
25 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
26 Amtrak, Fiscal 2008 Grant and Legislative Request, Feb. 15, 2007, p. 9.

---

CRS-9
——. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Surface Transportation
and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Hearing on S. 294. February 27, 2007.
——. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Surface Transportation
and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Reauthorization of Amtrak. April 21,
2005.
For Additional Reading
Amtrak Reform Council. Intercity Rail Passenger Service in America: Status,
Problems, and Options for Reform (the Second Annual Report of the Amtrak
Reform Council). March 20, 2001.
——. An Action Plan for the Restructuring and Rationalization of the National
Intercity Rail Passenger System. February 7, 2002.
Congressional Budget Office. The Past and Future of U.S. Passenger Rail Service.
September 2003.
National Passenger Railroad Corporation. Amtrak Strategic Reform Initiatives and
FY06 Grant Request. April 2005.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General. Assessment of
Amtrak’s 2003 and 2004 Financial Performance and Requirements. CR-2005-
013. November 18, 2004.
——. Reauthorization of Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak. CC-2005-030. April
21, 2005.
——. Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak. CC-2005-037. May 12, 2005.
——. Analysis of Cost Savings on Amtrak’s Long-Distance Services. CR-2005-068.
July 22, 2005.
——. Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak. CC-2006-026. March 16, 2006.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy
and Strategies Needed to Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures,
GAO-07-15. November 2006.
——. Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Action to Improve Efficiency,
Effectiveness, and Accountability. GAO-06-145. October 2005.
——. Commuter Rail: Commuter Rail Issues Should Be Considered in Debate Over
Amtrak. GAO-06-470. April 2006.
——. Intercity Passenger Rail: Potential Financial Issues in the Event that Amtrak
Undergoes Liquidation. GAO-02-871. September 2002.

---

CRS-10
——. Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for Consideration in Developing an Intercity
Passenger Rail Policy. GAO-03-712T. April 30, 2003.
——. Amtrak: Improved Management and Controls over Food and Beverage
Service Needed. GAO-05-867. August 2005.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL32709. Amtrak: Historical Background to the Political and Social
Aspects of Federal Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, by John Frittelli and Robert
S. Kirk.
CRS Report RL31550. Railroad Reorganization Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code:
Implications of a Filing by Amtrak, by Robin Jeweler.
CRS Report RL31473. Amtrak Profitability: An Analysis of Congressional
Expectations at Amtrak’s Creation, by D. Randall Peterman.
crsphpgw

---