I freight train interference delays across all routes declined by 40 percent. (B) One year after such date of enactment, freight train interference delays had declined by 54 percent and the on-time performance of long-distance trains reached 85 percent. (C) In 2014, after some of the provisions in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 related to enforcement of preference were ruled unconstitutional by a D.C. Circuit Court, long-distance train on-time performance declined from 72 percent to 50 percent, and freight train interference delays increased 59 percent. (D) The last time long-distance trains achieved an on-time rate of more than 80 percent in a given month was February 2012. (9) As a result of violations of Amtrak’s right to preference, Amtrak has been consistently unable on host railroad networks to meet its congressionally mandated mission and goals, which are codified in section 24101 of title 49, United States Code (relating to providing on-time and trip-time competitive service to its passengers). (10) Amtrak does not have an effective mechanism to enforce its statutory preference right in order to fulfill its mission and goals. Only the Attorney General can bring a civil action for equitable relief in a district court of the United States to enforce Amtrak’s preference rights. (11) In Amtrak’s entire history, the only enforcement action initiated by the Attorney General was against the Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1979. (12) Congress supports continued authority for the Attorney General to initiate an action, but Amtrak should also be entitled to bring a civil action before a Federal district court to enforce its statutory preference rights. 3. Authorize Amtrak to bring a civil action to enforce it preference rights (a) In general Section 24308(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended, by adding at the end the following: Notwithstanding sections 24103(a) and 24308(f), Amtrak shall have the right to bring an action for equitable or other relief in the United