Amtrak Privatization Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (changes in green ):

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

Amtrak provides a vital transport service for millions of Atlasians, and I for one would oppose the original Bill. It is too sweeping and I feel that we ought to be treading more cautiously. In proceeding with caution, I hope that the pain caused by the withdrawal of such services can be minimalised. It is for this reason, I support partial as opposed to full privatization and a phased (i.e. 25% each FY over 4 years) reduction in rail subsidies

Public and private partnership in service delivery is the way forward for Atlasia's rail network. It shouldn't  just be about profit alone, it's about providing millions of Atlasians with a much needed service too

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

quote author=Bono link=topic=43250.msg955558#msg955558 date=1154678845]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (changes in green ):

Partial Amtrak Privatization and Phased Withdrawal of Rail Subsidies Bill

1. All rail subsidies are reduced by 25% each FY commencing FY 2007, and by 25% each FY thereafter, until such time as subsidies are eliminated in FY 2011.
2. The Amtrak rail system is to be partially privatized [i.e. 50%] through an auction.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of partial privatization.
4. The partial privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
5. The joint-owners (i.e. the federal government and private shareholders) of the Amtrak rail system shall undertake a review of all routes as to determine their profitability and, if necessary, terminate, excessively, non-profitable routes with effect from FY 2007.
6. The federal government shall retain 51% of Amtrak voting rights.

Amtrak provides a vital transport service for millions of Atlasians, and I for one would oppose the original Bill. It is too sweeping and I feel that we ought to be treading more cautiously. In proceeding with caution, I hope that the pain caused by the withdrawal of such services can be minimalised. It is for this reason, I support partial as opposed to full privatization and a phased (i.e. 25% each FY over 4 years) reduction in rail subsidies

Public and private partnership in service delivery is the way forward for Atlasia's rail network. It shouldn't  just be about profit alone, it's about providing millions of Atlasians with a much needed service too

'Hawk'

Tell me something: who would want to buy 49% of a practically bankrupt company, and then have absolutely no say in how it's ran, since the federal government still controls a majority of it?
[/quote]

I think my vision of a public-private partnership as having the potential to secure the future of Atlasia's rail network is an admirable one. The monies raised could be invested in the infrastructure but that's a matter for the Board to decide

It's mute, however, because given the sentiments expressed thus far I don't see this Bill passing with or without my amendment. We'll just have to wait and see

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

You avoid it and instead give some hearty speech about partnership. My only conclusion is that you don't have any grasp of reality.

It has an ethical appeal about it. Not all private companies are purely motivated by self-interest. At the end of the day, AMTRAK provides a vital service. Is it not feasible that a public-private partnership could work together in the mutual interest when it comes to providing transport services? I might not be an ideologue but I'd like to think I am to some extent an idealist

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I would just like to state that I will be vetoing this legislation should the amendment currently before the Senate pass.  This amended version will allow any willing bidders to buy 49% of a bankrupt company and then have absolutely no say in its management.  Obviously this is plainly stupid policy, crafted under the guise of well-intentioned but thoughtless compromise.  I cannot support it.

Well, I appreciate you advising the Senate of your intentions. This is how things should be done . Nevertheless, I raise a number of issues

Would private investors necessarily not have a say in the management of Amtrak? Would federal appointees automatically close ranks to block any proposed intiatives from those representing private investors? Would federal appointees to the Board and those respresenting private investors not reach agreement as to its future?

My amendment is about realising a public-private partnership as being the way forward for rail transport. Of course, should this amendment pass, I'm open to a straight 50-50 split in ownership and voting rights. That way they'd have to work together , which is what they should be doing. On reflection, perhaps, I should have proposed this in the first instance

As for my amendment, it is well intentioned and under no guise. Everything I've done in my political life is, has been, and always will be with the best of intentions

I won't under any circumstances be supporting the full privatization of Amtrak because I don't think it's in the public interest to do so. "Selling off the family silver" slither by slither is short-sighted and being a visionary I'm not comfortable with that

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I offer this amendment:


6. The Federal Government shall retain 49% of Amtrak voting rights.

Well my amendment proposes 50% of the company be sold, while the federal appointees have 51% of the voting rights. I consider this to be fair enough given that the federal government, and not the private investors, fund the subsidies

In answer to your questions, here goes:

1) No - the federal government, as with private investors, would have a say
2) No - I don't see private investors closing ranks any more than the federal appointees would
3) No - private investors and federal appointees can reach agreement as to the future of Amtrak

But the private investors aren't the onces paying the subsidies

Nevertheless, whether it's federal appointees or the private investors who have 51% of the voting rights, the principle of a public-private partnership in the delivery of rail services remains intact and that would do me

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd like to introduce this amendment:

Amtrak Privatization Bill
1. The Amtrak rail system is to be privatized through an auction.
2. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations relating to the process of privatization.
3. The privatization of the Amtrak system shall be completed before the year 2007.
4. The person or corporation who purchases the Amtrak system will be authorized to terminate unprofitable routes at their discretion.

And the old clause one goes *poof*.  This makes this bill an actual 'Amtrak Privatization Bill' rather than an 'Amtrak Privatization Bill but oh wait we're removing every single rail subsidy too'.

So, basically, you are proposing that we fully privatize Amtrak but retain rail subsidies

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I would have supported partial privatization, which would have resulted in a public-private partnership but voiced opposition to a full privatization from the outset; therefore, I have no other choice but to vote Nay

'Hawk'