Contributions are not tax deductible

 Contact: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Congress To Recess for August

But No Amtrak Bill Enacted Yet

The last time Congress passed an Amtrak authorization bill it was during the fall of 1997. Since then four different CEO’s have served as Amtrak’s president and it has been over a decade since Congress has had to deal with this issue.

Both the House and Senate have now passed (by large margins) new authorizing legislation for Amtrak, they have worked out the differences between the two bills and are ready to enact this legislation over a threatened presidential veto.  However, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority in Congress support this bill, it still sits languishing because one Senator (it is rumored to be Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK) is holding it up (along with a number of other bills).

According to the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the target adjournment date for the year is Oct. 1,  2008.

But the work the Nevada Democrat hopes to get done when they come back in September following Congress’ August recess is formidable.

On the list, just about everything imaginable. Start with authorizing Defense appropriations, funding for the Defense Department, military construction, and Homeland Security. Then there’s work to be done on tax break extenders, a bundle of measures (including the Amtrak Authorization Bill) to address concerns by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and a second stimulus package designed to spur the economy. Energy legislation is likely to come up again, as well.

The Senate is expected to return on September 8 and the House to be back on September 9 and they plan to get all this work done within three weeks. I wonder if that will happen!

If you happen to run into your Senator or whoever represents you in the House during the summer break while some of them may be campaigning for re-election—why not ask them why it is that they can’t seem to get their work done particularly on a bill like the Amtrak Authorization that has such broad support?  This is the one time in two years where House Members should be accountable and the one time in six years that Senators need to held accountable—it can’t hurt to ask.

Infrastructure Investment

The United States invests less than 2% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in its national infrastructure and that lack of investment is beginning to have a detrimental impact on our economy. China, on the other hand, invests about 9% of its GDP in infrastructure projects, Latin American countries invest between 5-6% of the GDP in its infrastructure, Russia about 4%, and many other countries are usually in that 4 to 6 percent bracket.

Governor David Paterson (New York) and Governor Martin O’Malley (Maryland) wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post today (July 31, 2008) making a convincing argument that we need to do much more to improve our transportation infrastructure. They estimate that for every $1 billion invested in transportation projects, 42,000 jobs are created and that every dollar spent on infrastructure projects generates about $5.70 in economic activity.

Now, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee wants to do something about it and unveiled a second economic stimulus supplemental bill. The legislation may go to the floor of the U.S. Senate in September.

The following is a statement in part from Senator Byrd:

The need for a second stimulus supplemental bill is clear. The U.S. economy has largely stagnated, with an anemic growth rate of 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007 and 1 percent in the first quarter of 2008. The Treasury Secretary has warned that slow growth could continue for months.”

“The U.S. economy has lost jobs every month this year, a total of 438,000 jobs. Construction has lost 528,000 jobs since September 2006. Manufacturing has lost 353,000 jobs since June 2007. Two weeks ago, the Department of Labor reported consumer prices increased 5 percent overall compared to last year. Food costs were 5.3 percent higher compared to last year, and energy prices were 24.7 percent higher. Consumer confidence is at a near fifty-year low. In June 2008, more consumers than at any time since the survey has been conducted reported that their financial situation has worsened.”

“The Chairman’s mark would create over 200,000 jobs here in America and thousands of Americans would be trained for new job opportunities. Retooling for more energy efficient vehicles would create 60,000 new jobs, and the $6 billion of loans in this bill would begin that effort. The $4.8 billion transportation infrastructure component of this supplemental would produce at least 166,000 jobs. Over 13,000 jobs would be created for renovating schools, and more than 133,000 youths and dislocated workers would receive job training and services.”

“The Congress needs to act now and do its part to stimulate the U.S. economy and put our Nation back on the right track.”

Partial Summary of the Bill

Infrastructure, Energy, and Economic Recovery

($10 billion)

Energy ($1.5 billion)

The supplemental includes $1.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities.

• This includes $900 million specifically for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program (Section 136, Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007), which provides up to $6 billion in Direct Loan Authority for the retooling of vehicle manufacturing plants in the United States toward the goal of building more efficient cars.

• Another $300 million provides for Advanced Battery technology to help resolve problems in developing long-term, cost-effective storage systems, the biggest hurdle to bringing plug-in hybrid or pure plug-in vehicles to the marketplace.

• Finally, the supplemental includes $300 million for competitively awarded grants to local, county, State, and tribal governments for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy demonstration projects.

Transportation ($4.762 billion)

• Additional Highway Funding. The Committee bill includes $3.57 billion for highway investments. Funding from the general fund would be sent by formula to every State in order to improve deficient roads and bridges. These investments would also generate over 124,000 jobs right here at home. In addition, the bill includes a provision that transfers cash into the Highway Trust Fund so that it remains solvent through fiscal year 2009 and States will continue to make infrastructure investments.

• Public Transportation. The first quarter of 2008 saw 88 million more transit trips than the same period last year. The bill includes $892.5 million for transit agencies to address capital and operating needs in order to meet this growing demand. Legislative language is also included to allow for an increase in the Federal Transit Administration’s contingent commitment authority to allow additional major transit projects to progress to construction in the coming months.

• Investing in Amtrak. As an increasing number of Americans are turning to rail transportation in the wake of high gas prices, the bill includes funding to address the increasing demands on Amtrak across the country. The bill includes $100 million to fund capital projects along Amtrak’s corridors, including funding to rehabilitate inactive rolling stock.

• Airport Investments. The Committee bill includes $200 million for capital improvements to airports across the country. These funds would support projects that are ready to begin construction immediately, bringing necessary improvements to our aviation system and supporting jobs in the local communities.

Getting to High Speed Rail in the U.S.

One of the reasons our rail passenger system in the U.S. is below world standards is that our government (federal and state) has not made the financial investment that other counties have made. It will cost billions to achieve here what others (France, Japan, etc.) have already accomplished in high speed rail.

California is planning to change that. It has a true high speed rail proposal on the November ballot which is expected to get a 60% favorable vote. That initiative would generate about $9 billion in revenue to begin a high speed rail construction process that experts say will take a decade to complete and probably cost about $40 billion by the time it is fully implemented.

So, where will California get the rest of the necessary funding it needs to complete the project? No one is really sure yet but many are thinking about how to achieve that objective.

In a struggling economy with gas prices going through the ceiling, the only creative funding ideas seem to be related to bonding proposals—tax free bonds, tax credit bonds, private activity bonds, etc.—more debt for the future. Increasing the gas tax, as proposed by the Surface Transportation and Revenue Study Commission, would generate revenue but may be difficult to do when gas is already at $4 per gallon. Maybe we should have a tax on offshore drilling? A dollar per barrel on new oil for billions of un-drilled barrels of oil might work.

Some transportation policy experts have suggested that the U.S. transportation policy is way out of balance and that we have been investing in the most inefficient modes of transportation that have made us overly dependent on foreign oil. As a result, our transportation system is almost entirely responsible for our nation’s dependence on oil as the major source of energy. A more balanced transportation policy would allow us to invest in more efficient modes of transportation like rail passenger service and make a real push to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

So, if the goal is to have a more balanced transportation policy, reduce our addiction to foreign oil and improve air quality we are going to need to do something different. Alternative fuels may be decades away from implementation. To make progress now we will have to focus on efficiency and reducing the amount of vehicle miles traveled. Isn’t the theory that if you want less of something you should tax it? Why not place a fee on the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a way to generate revenue for more efficient modes of transportation?

According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2006 there are 250,851,833 registered vehicles in the US. Out of these roughly 251 million vehicles, 135,399,945 were classified as automobiles (the average auto vehicle travels about 9,500 miles per year), while 99,124,775 were classified as "Other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles," presumably SUVs and pick-up trucks. Yet another 6,649,337 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,169,670 were classified as "Truck combination." There were approximately 6,686,147 motorcycles in the US in 2006.

If the federal government were to place a one cent fee on each vehicle mile traveled by car in the U.S. it would generate on average about $95 per year per vehicle. With 135 million passenger car vehicles in the U.S. each contributing on average $95 per year (at one cent per mile) it would generate about $12.8 billion annually into a transportation fund that could begin to invest in much more efficient modes of transportation like high speed rail systems. Perhaps trucks should pay a higher vehicle mile traveled fee but even if it is the same one cent per VMT as cars and has the same average miles per year (9,500—trucks probably have more annual mileage) the fund could have $23.7 billion per year.

Those kinds of resources could actually get things done. And, who could argue against a penny a mile fee?

U.S. Transportation Secretary Peters Unveils Bush Administration’s
New Approach for America’s Transportation Future

ATLANTA – A clean and historic break with the past is needed to encourage the future vitality of our country’s transportation network, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters, who today unveiled the Bush Administration’s new plan to refocus, reform and renew the national approach to highway and transit systems in America.

“Without a doubt, our federal approach to transportation is broken. And no amount of tweaking, adjusting or adding new layers on top will make things better,” Secretary Peters said. “It is time for a new, a different and a better approach.”

The Secretary said the plan sets a course for reforming the nation’s transportation programs by outlining a renewed federal focus on maintaining and improving the Interstate highway system, instead of diverting funds for wasteful pet projects and for programs clearly not federal priority areas like restoring lighthouses.

Addressing urban congestion and giving greater flexibility to state and local leaders to invest in their most needed transit and highway priorities is another key focus of the reform plan, said Secretary Peters. Local leaders will have greater freedom and significantly more resources to fund new subways, bus routes or highways as they choose, based on the needs of local commuters instead of the dictates of Washington.

As part of this focus on congestion, the plan would create a Metropolitan Innovation Fund that rewards cities willing to combine a mix of effective transit investments, dynamic pricing of highways and new traffic technologies, the Secretary said.

The reform plan also calls for greatly reducing over 102 federal transportation programs which have proliferated over the last two decades replacing them with eight comprehensive, intermodal programs that will help focus instead of dilute investments, and cut the dizzying red-tape forced upon local planners, she said.

Secretary Peters said a hallmark of the plan is a refocused and redoubled emphasis on safety, using a data and technology-driven approach that also gives states maximum flexibility to tackle their toughest safety challenges. Using a data-driven approach, she said, we are and must continue focusing on issues that put drivers, commercial drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk, including crashes involving drunk drivers, motorcycles, work zones and rural roads.

And to improve the current 13-year average it takes to design and build new highway and transit projects in the United States, the Secretary said the federal review process would be streamlined to ask the same stringent environmental and planning questions, but get answers more quickly.

The Secretary emphasized that central to any reform for transportation is finding new revenue sources to supplement the unpredictable and unsustainable gas tax, in order to fund maintenance and pay for new needed projects. She said the gas tax is an antiquated mechanism, underscored by the current climate of high gas prices. Americans are driving less and taking advantage of transit options, but less driving also results in less revenue for transit operations.

Secretary Peters said more direct pricing options like tolling are needed and states must be empowered to take advantage of the over $400 billion available worldwide for infrastructure investments from the private sector. “The idea is simple: use federal funds to encourage new sources of investments for transportation, instead of replacing them,” she said.

“Our plan will make it easier to pay for and build roads and transit systems. It will deliver fewer traffic tie ups, better transit services and a stronger economy. It will make our roads safer and give Americans new confidence that the money they invest in transportation will actually deliver results,” Secretary Peters said.

The Secretary said the plan lays out the Administrations’ framework for completely overhauling the way U.S. transportation decisions and investments are made, and is intended to spur local, state and federal debate about how best to incorporate the new reforms into surface transportation legislation slated to be considered by Congress in 2009. She will personally brief Members of Congress on the contents of the plan this week.

“I look forward to working with my colleagues on Capitol Hill over the next few months to really explore the innovative ideas contained in this proposal,” Secretary Peters said. “While I understand that this plan represents a significant departure from the status quo, I hope that Congress will shed partisan labels and come together to consider a piece of legislation that will keep our transportation system viable well into the next decade.”

A copy of the reform plan is available at www.fightgridlocknow.gov.

A copy of the remarks can be found at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/peters072908.htm.

# # #

Passenger Rail Car Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the aviation industry announces their intention to cut 30,000 jobs in the wake of rapidly rising jet fuel prices, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today introduced legislation that would create jobs and help Amtrak meet the increasing demand for an efficient, cost-effective and reliable alternative mode of travel.  Durbin’s bill aims to promote the replacement and rehabilitation of Amtrak’s aging fleet of passenger cars and to revive the train car industry in the United States.

The Train CARS Act envisions a Twenty-First Century Rail system that makes flying short distances a thing of the past with a high-speed rail system rooted in major metropolitan areas like Chicago. The most immediate obstacle in the way of making this vision a reality is the lack of passenger rail train cars and equipment. 

“Driven by the rising price of oil, we are witnessing a fundamental transformation of our economy and our national transportation system,” said Durbin.  “Aviation downsizing and the high cost of driving have led to a dramatic increase in Amtrak ridership – up 11% from last year.  But without more resources, Amtrak will not be able to keep pace with new ridership.  My bill proposes a package of financing options to bring our existing train cars into a state of good repair and lay the groundwork for the next generation of trains built in America.”

The United States has seen a surge in ridership on Amtrak routes and Illinois is no exception.  Ridership on all Illinois state-subsidized routes added an additional 181,000 passengers during the first two-thirds of the current fiscal year, bringing the state’s ridership to 670,000 for the year.  Specifically, ridership on the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg routes jumped 41.4 percent in 2007 compared to the previous fiscal year.

American railcar giants like the Pullman and Budd Companies provided a strong domestic manufacturing base for over a century, providing rail cars that are still on the tracks today.  But those companies have long since closed their doors and left the business of making passenger rail cars, due in part, to years of underinvestment in the U.S. and increased investment by European countries.

The Train CARS Act provides funding to encourage manufacturers currently supplying passenger rail cars overseas to bring their modern design and manufacturing expertise to the U.S. and open manufacturing facilities here to meet growing demand. The bill also provides a tax incentive for private, domestic businesses to re-enter the passenger rail equipment business and rebuild facilities and train cars here in the U.S.

Durbin’s legislation would take the following steps to address the most immediate obstacle to expanding Amtrak service – the lack of passenger rail train cars and equipment:

• Grants and Tax-Credit Bonds for Domestically-Manufactured Train Cars: Creates a new matching grant program at the Department of Transportation for Amtrak and states to rehabilitate existing equipment and purchase new, American-made equipment.  Also authorizes Amtrak to issue up to $2.8 billion in qualified bonds over four years to finance train car projects. To encourage bond purchases, owners would receive a credit against current year taxes.

• Buy American Requirements and Labor Protections: Ensure that any funding or tax credits provided in the bill are used for domestically produced train cars and that workers in the manufacturing and rehabilitation of train cars are paid a prevailing wage and protected under federal railroad labor laws. 

• Capacity Improvement Charge Matching Program: Allow states to receive a dollar for dollar match on any equipment fee they impose for the purchase of new domestically produced train cars. 

• Next Generation Equipment Pool: Mandate that Amtrak establishes a committee, along with Federal Railroad Administration and interested states, to design and develop specifications for a procurement standard for the next generation of passenger rail equipment.  The Committee is instructed to examine the benefits of having a public or private corporation separate from Amtrak purchase new equipment and lease that equipment to the states and Amtrak for service. 

• Intercity Passenger Rail Rolling Stock Trust Fund: Create a new trust fund to give Amtrak and the states a secure and reliable source of capital funding to replace the nation's train cars.  The legislation would transfer one-quarter cent of the per-gallon motor fuels tax into the new Rolling Stock Trust Fund for three years generating approximately $400 million/year.  

Durbin’s legislation would take the following steps to bring the passenger rail system – an industry that could once again offer high-paying jobs to thousands of workers and serve as the backbone of a national transportation system – into the 21st Century:

• National Passenger Rail Electrification System Study: Directs the GAO to conduct a study of the costs, benefits and economic impacts of providing intercity passenger rail along a national electrification system.  Electrifying the passenger rail system would provide a non-oil transportation alternative that could transport passengers along high-speed corridors without ever using a drop of oil. 

• Job Transition Services for Workers: Requires the Department of Labor to identify existing programs and recommend changes to help transition workers leaving the aviation and automobile industries transition into rail care manufacturing, rehabilitation and maintenance.  

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) is an original cosponsor of today’s legislation which is also supported by the following national organizations:  the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council and the United Transportation Union.

Senate Appropriations Committee Views on Amtrak

The average American rarely takes time to sit down to read a Congressional committee “report” which can often be a daunting task. But short passages from these reports on very specific subjects can provide the reader with insights into the mindset of those who are making policy on those matters. In this case, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Committee, is primarily responsible for the content that follows.

The following is an excerpt from the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee on Amtrak funding. It is basically commentary on the amount of funding the committee is providing:

The Committee provides $550,000,000 for operating grants for Amtrak. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account for the difference between Amtrak’s self-generated operating revenues and its total operating costs. The amount provided is $275,000,000 more than the President’s request which sought such operating assistance through an efficiency incentive grant program. The amount provided is $75,000,000 more than the comparable amount provided for fiscal year 2007.

    Amtrak Reform Legislation.—The Senate passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act—a comprehensive passenger rail reauthorization bill—on October 30, 2007 by a vote of 70 to 22. The House of Representatives passed its version the bill on June 11, 2008 by a vote of 311 to 104. Included within those bills are numerous reform proposals for Amtrak and its operations. Pending the enactment of such a final comprehensive Amtrak reform bill, the Committee has included most of the legislative provisions from prior appropriations acts governing the availability of Amtrak operating subsidies through a route-by-route grant making process approved by the Secretary of Transportation.

    Settlement of Wage Labor Contracts.—The Committee is pleased that the lengthy period of stalemate and inaction over Amtrak’s labor contracts will soon come to close. Following an 8-year period during which the vast majority of Amtrak’s wage workforce did not see a meaningful wage increase, Amtrak has now reached contract agreements with all of its unions. The catalyst in reaching these settlements was the decision of the National Mediation Board to release several of Amtrak’s unions from mediation and the President issuing an Executive Order on December 1, 2007 appointing an Emergency Board (PEB No. 242) to investigate and report on the long-running dispute. The Emergency Board authority called for under section 10 of the Railway Labor Act has been used several times in the past to help settle rail labor disputes including disputes involving Amtrak employees.

    Following the issuance of the report of that Emergency Board on December 30, 2007, Amtrak and its unions began finalizing contracts consistent with the recommendations of the PEB. Contracts have now been ratified by all 19 of Amtrak’s major unions. Consistent with the recommendations of PEB 242, the recently negotiated contracts call for Amtrak’s wage workers to receive lump sum payments from the Corporation to compensate them in part for the wage increases foregone during the lengthy period covering fiscal years 2002 through 2007 when Amtrak and its workers could not reach a wage settlement. While the signed contracts call for a few of Amtrak’s unions to receive these payments in one lump sum, the majority of Amtrak’s workers are expected to receive these payments in two increments—known as first and second retroactive wage payments. Amtrak began making the first retroactive wage payment to workers with ratified contracts utilizing revenues available to the corporation on May 8, 2008. The second retroactive wage payment is due to Amtrak’s workers not later than 1 year following their receipt of the first payment.

    During its hearing on Amtrak’s finances held on April 3, 2008, the Committee pursued many questions surrounding the financing of the second retroactive wage payment. Differing views were expressed between witnesses from Amtrak and the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] as to whether Amtrak would need an increased appropriation to accommodate the cost of the second lump sum payment in fiscal year 2009. The DOT OIG witness testified that Amtrak’s revenues and improved budget position indicate that the corporation is likely to end fiscal year 2008 with a substantial cash balance—now estimated to be more than $293,000,000—that should be sufficient to cover the cost of the second retroactive wage payment. Amtrak’s President and Board Chairman contested that assumption, citing the uncertainty surrounding the economy and, by extension, its potential impact on Amtrak’s ridership and revenues.

The Grant Request

    The formal grant request submitted by Amtrak’s Board of Directors to the Committee acknowledges the corporation’s financial liability for the second retroactive wage payment but refuses to formally seek the funding from Congress. The position of the Board was articulated by its Chairman who testified to the Committee that “it’s the decision of Congress on meeting those requirements.”

    While the Committee believes that the Amtrak Board should submit grant requests that accurately reflect all, not just some, of the corporation’s contract liabilities, the Committee has nonetheless decided to meet the requirements of the second retroactive wage payment. As such, the bill includes a provision that requires the Secretary to withhold from Amtrak the sums necessary for the payment of the second retroactive wage payment. The Secretary shall transmit those sums to the corporation for no purpose other than the payment of the second retroactive wage payments and only at such times as the payments are due.

    After more than 8 years of increasingly divisive labor-management relations, the Committee hopes and expects that the resolution of this final settlement will signal a period of renewed cooperation between Amtrak labor and Amtrak management in addressing the many challenges facing the corporation.

    Resources Available for Operations.—The Committee is providing $550,000,000 for operating expenses for Amtrak for fiscal year 2009. The amount provided is $75,000,000 more than the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.

    The Committee believes that the amount provided will be sufficient to cover Amtrak’s operating losses in 2009 after funds are withheld for the costs associated with the second retroactive wage payment that will be financed under this appropriation. Amtrak has experienced stronger-than-expected ridership growth in the current year that has boosted revenues by almost $112,000,000 over the levels initially budgeted by Amtrak. Expenses (net of the costs of the initial retroactive wage payment) have also grown, however, largely as a result of higher-than-budgeted fuel costs. The combined effect of these trends indicates that Amtrak is currently operating $91,000,000 ahead of budget and is on course to end the year with a cash balance approaching $300,000,000. The DOT Inspector General has written to the Committee to communicate his view that this balance by itself should be sufficient to allow Amtrak to finance the second retroactive wage in 2009 without any increase in its operating subsidy.

    The Committee recognizes that there is still uncertainty that surrounds the sustainability of Amtrak’s improved financial condition. It can’t be estimated at this time whether fuel prices will continue to stay at current historic highs or grow even further. And while those increased fuel costs have been a strong contributor to Amtrak’s improved ticket sales, it can’t be known at this time whether these dramatically higher fuel prices might eventually slow the economy to an extent that they will negatively impact Amtrak’s revenues. The Committee has provided a $75,000,000 increase in Amtrak’s operating subsidy to ensure a greater guarantee of stability for the corporation as it progresses through the year while funding the second retroactive wage payment. The Committee will continue to monitor Amtrak’s monthly financial performance reports to assess the sustainability of Amtrak’s improved performance. The Committee further understands that the corporation is currently preparing a more detailed and comprehensive budget estimate for fiscal year 2009 that will be presented to its Board of Directors in July. The Committee looks forward to reviewing Amtrak’s updated estimates.

House Passes Highway Funding Bill, Brushing Aside Veto Threat

7/23/2008. The Highway Trust Fund is in trouble and may be bankrupt in just a few years. It will be just another part of our crumbling national infrastructure.

Because fuel consumption is down, revenues which fund the Highway Trust Fund are also significantly reduced. For years, federal policy makers were fearful of imposing a higher  federal fuel tax when gas prices were less than $2 per gallon (Oh, the good ole days) and now OPEC and the oil companies have filled the void left by policy makers failing to increase gas taxes when prices were low and they are now reaping the profits.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, the House today overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to shore up the federal Highway Trust Fund with $8 billion in general revenue (not fuel tax revenues).  They will, of course, have to borrow the money from China to pay this bill and our children and grandchildren will get stuck with the bill.

Despite the president’s threat and opposition from some Republicans, the House passed the bill 387-37.

“I wish as one of the strongest conservatives in the House to have some other alternative to bring you today, but I do not have that,” John L. Mica , R-Fla., the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said.  Of course the alternative would be to raise the gas tax but who is going to do that right  before the election? Certainly not our courageous leaders.

At one point this year, the Highway Trust Fund was expected to have a $3 billion shortfall in 2009, but new estimates scheduled to be released next week show that figure could increase to $6 billion as Americans drive less in response to $4 per gallon gasoline prices. The trust fund is financed through an 18.4-cents-per- gallon excise tax on gasoline.  What do other countries do with taxing gasoline?  Canada’s tax is about $1.26 per gallon , Spain has a $3.37 per gallon tax, in the UK and in France it’s just over $5 per gallon and in the Netherlands is about $5.50 per gallon. All those countries (with the exception of Canada) have much better rail passenger systems.

In 1997 Congress refused to provide Amtrak with a half a cent per gallon gas tax to fund its capital needs because everyone was afraid to increase the cost of gas! What were they thinking? 

Unless more revenue becomes available soon, hundreds of projects authorized in the 2005 highway law could not start and ones already in progress may have to be stretched out.

The White House said in a statement of administration policy that Congress needs to come up with a better way to refill the trust fund.

“This bill is both a gimmick and a dangerous precedent that shifts costs from users to taxpayers at large,” the White House said. “Moreover, the measure would unnecessarily increase the deficit and would place any hope of future, responsible constraints on highway spending in jeopardy.”

The Bush administration had suggested borrowing $3.2 billion from the federal mass transit account to cover the highway shortfall, but that was quickly rejected by most lawmakers.  This is what happens when the federal government has no national transportation policy or no national energy policy.  Who really thinks at a time that we are so dependent on foreign oil that it would be a good idea to take money from those modes of transportation that are the most fuel efficient (transit) and give it to the least efficient modes (cars and trucks on highways)? Well, apparently this administration thinks it’s a good idea.  Maybe they should ask T. Boon Pickens—a Texas oilman—who is spending almost $60 million of his own money to run a nationwide TV ad suggesting that depending on oil as the primary source of energy for transportation (our transportation sector is using 7 out of 10 barrels of our imported oil for transportation) is no longer sustainable.  Shipping $700 billion per year to foreign countries to purchase their oil is not only a stupid policy but  from the perspective of national security it is a dangerous policy.

Amtrak Bill Goes to Conference

The House moved Amtrak one step closer to its first reauthorization since 1997 on Tuesday when it moved to go to conference with the Senate to work out the differences between the two bills.

With House conferees named Tuesday and the Senate expected to soon follow suit, lawmakers could start a conference committee on the legislation as early as next week and presumably get a conference report passed by Congress before the August recess.  The key to success here will be getting enough votes in both the House and Senate to override a threatened Presidential veto.

Conferees will have to address a House provision that would allow the Transportation Department to take private-sector bids for a high-speed rail line from Washington, D.C., to Manhattan in New York City. No such language is in the Senate version.

John L. Mica of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the chief backer of that particular provision, said he would take a hard stance on retaining it.

Mica said there is no room for compromise on the language, because it would allow the Transportation Department to accept bids but would not force the new line to be operated privately.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., one of Amtrak’s staunchest allies, will fight to keep Mica’s provision out of the final bill. But Lautenberg stopped short Tuesday of saying he would let it kill the measure. Some lobbyists familiar with the issue say that the Mica provision is really “toothless” because it does not include any funding. The fact remains that any private entity interested in the Northeast Corridor will require multiple billions of dollars to rebuild the NEC  to a state of the art high speed rail system and will likely need Congress to  help find that funding.

“I’m trying to provide an opportunity to look at what Mica would like and not to be dismissing it,” Lautenberg said. “My preference is to keep [Amtrak] a government responsibility.”

Both the House and Senate have passed slightly different versions of the Amtrak bill with the key difference being the Mica language. Also, both bills passed their respective chamber with enough votes to override a veto but if the House loses the Mica language in conference it may not be able to get the votes necessary to override a veto.

Transportation Communications Union Endorses Barack Obama for President

Last update: 3:25 p.m. EDT July 21, 2008

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The Transportation Communications International Union (TCU) today endorsed Senator Barack Obama for U.S. President. Here is the announcement from TCU International President Robert A. Scardelletti:

"Our nation is in desperate need of a President who will reverse the disastrous course of these last eight years and lead us in a positive direction. The person for the job is Barack Obama. He is the leader who can bring this country together again.

"TCU members -- indeed, all American working families -- find themselves under enormous pressure today just to keep their heads above water, thanks to the policies of the Bush administration. We can expect even worse from Senator John McCain.

"McCain has stood against TCU members' interests time and time again: He has consistently opposed funding for Amtrak; he has voted against security funds to protect rail workers; he fought repairing unsafe tunnels on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor; and he has even helped foreign manufacturers bid on U.S. military contracts -- jeopardizing thousands of good paying American jobs.

"McCain supported Bush's plan to risk Social Security benefits through privatization, voted to raise the Medicare eligibility age and missed a critical vote to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors. He opposed the minimum wage increase, yet supported tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. He is no true friend to our veterans: he even voted against the Post 9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act which would have eased the transition for soldiers returning home from war. McCain is the American worker's worst nightmare. He must be defeated at all costs.

"Sen. Obama has a solid record as a champion of working families. He stands for the change America needs -- for building a strong national passenger rail system by adequately funding Amtrak long-term, for commuter transit, for good jobs, affordable health care, retirement security, and worker safety. Obama understands the importance of unions in maintaining and building a strong American middle class and the need for public policy that protects working families.

"While McCain has stood against us at every turn, Obama stands with us. I have confidence that after his election, when Obama makes appointments to the many agencies that govern TCU members' lives -- the Railroad Retirement Board, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the National Mediation Board key among them -- he will remove these institutions from the grip of hostile, anti-union appointees and return them to their original purposes of protecting the rights of American working men and women.

"TCU members need action on the issues that make a difference in our daily lives. We will mobilize to elect Barack Obama and a working family-friendly Congress in November. It is time to turn around America!"

TCU represents 55,000 members who are primarily employed in the railroad industry as clerical workers, carmen, supervisors, yardmasters, on-board service workers and more. Membership also ranges to include workers at Disney World and other non-railroad companies. Top officers are International President Robert A. Scardelletti and International Secretary-Treasurer Danny Biggs. For more information about TCU, go to www.TCUnion.org.

SOURCE Transportation Communications Union (TCU)

Private High-Speed Rail at Issue in Amtrak Bill

The House is expected to send the Amtrak reauthorization bill to a conference committee with the Senate today, setting up a battle over whether to allow private companies to bid on development of a high-speed rail line in the Northeast Corridor. The privatization language was proposed by Congressman Mica (R-FL).

The $14.4 billion House bill includes a directive to allow companies to bid on building and operating a line that would take passengers between Washington, D.C., and New York City in less than two hours.

Democrats have long rejected the idea of any kind of privatization of passenger rail, but Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., said developing high-speed rail in the United States was worth compromising with his Republican colleagues. Inclusion of the high-speed provision won a significant amount of House GOP votes.

Privatizing “is not high on my agenda, not at all,” said Oberstar, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “But OK, here’s an idea. Here’s an opening. Let’s take the idea, keep the core principle in place and include your idea, and we found common ground.”

But Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., the author of the $11.4 billion Senate version, probably will fight hard to keep the language out of the conference committee’s version. But the privatization language may be necessary if Congress wants to pass a veto proof bill. 

The vote on the bill is strictly procedural. The House has already passed its version but the chamber needs to pass that legislative language again under the Senate bill number so the conference can begin.

The House vote will occur under suspension of the rules, which bars amendments, limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority for passage. The chamber voted 311-104 on June 11 to pass its original version.

Senior Democrats say they want the conference committee to begin its work before the August recess.

Aside from the differences over high-speed rail, the two bills are similar:

• The Senate bill would allocate about $3.3 billion for operating costs; the House measure would authorize $3 billion.

• The Senate bill proposes $6.3 billion for capital projects; the House version, $6.7 billion.

• Senators proposed $1.4 billion for intercity passenger rail; the House bill, $2.5 billion.

Both the Senate and House bills would involve the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in resolving disputes about rights of way between freight railroads and Amtrak, but in slightly different ways.

The Senate’s bill would allow Amtrak to petition STB to investigate whether freight traffic was to blame when Amtrak’s on-time performance fell. The House bill would require STB to intervene as mediator when Amtrak and freight railroads can’t reach agreement about rights of way.

Once the conference reaches an agreement on working out the differences between the House and Senate passed bills (and it appears that the Mica language is the major difference) the conference report will have to pass both the House and Senate in its revised form again.  Some believe that if the conferees strike the Mica language they will lose Republican votes in the House that may result in a sustainable presidential veto.

Senate Addresses Amtrak On-Time Performance

From: Senate Report 110-418, Senate Transportation Appropriations Report for FY 2009

On-time Performance of Amtrak Trains- The Committee (Senate Appropriations Committee) continues to be dismayed by the poor on-time performance of Amtrak's trains, especially the railroad's State-supported routes and long-distance trains that operate outside the Northeast Corridor. These trains travel over track owned and dispatched by the Nation's freight railroads. Indeed, many of these train services were operated by the freight railroads themselves until 37 years ago when the Rail Passenger Service Act allowed them to unload these money-losing operations onto the newly-created National Rail Passenger Service Corporation (Amtrak).

Despite the heightened attention brought to the poor on-time performance of Amtrak's off-corridor trains, there has only been marginal improvement seen over the last year. Nationwide, Amtrak's on-time performance improved from 68.9 percent in 2007 to 72.7 percent for the year to date. However, these figures include the much higher on-time performance rates on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services and mask the much poorer performance of Amtrak trains off the Corridor. Certain Amtrak services--including State-supported services--continue to arrive at their destinations on time less than one-third of the time. Short distance trains in Vermont, Missouri, and Michigan have, for the year to date, experienced on-time arrival rates of only 33 percent, 18 percent and 29 percent respectively. Long distance services such as the California Zephyr, the Capitol Limited, and the Cardinal arrive on time less than half the time while the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle arrive on time less than one-quarter of the time.

In testimony before the Committee in 2007, the FRA Administrator testified that the on-time performance of Amtrak trains was `one of my top priorities outside of safety itself.' In order to monitor the Administrator's progress in addressing the problem, the Committee included a requirement in the 2008 appropriations act for the Administrator to submit quarterly reports detailing his efforts. That law states explicitly that these quarterly reports `shall compare the most recent actual on-time performance data to pre-established on-time performance goals that the Administrator shall set for each rail service, identified by route' (see sec. 151 of division K, Public Law 110-161). To the Committee's dismay, the Administrator's first quarterly report was submitted woefully late and lacked the route-by-route goal and performance data that was required under the law. The Committee expects that Administrator's next submission to comply fully with the law. Moreover, as the Committee has done previously with reports from DOT that are not submitted by their statutory deadline, a provision has been added to the bill that reduces the funds available to the Office of the Secretary by $100,000 for each day that the report is submitted beyond its statutory due date.

The first quarterly report, as submitted by the Administrator, states that `even without regulatory authority over [on-time performance], the FRA can leverage its Federal leadership role and its grant-making capabilities to support improved reliability of intercity passenger trains over host freight railroads.' Since the Administrator agrees that he has some of the tools necessary to seriously address the OTP problem, the Committee expects him to use them and show measurable results in the near future.

The Committee commends the Secretary for using a recent meeting with the chief executives of the major Class I railroads to charge them with identifying one Amtrak route operating on their territory and developing an action plan for removing delays and improving on-time performance on that route. Such plans were expected to be developed in partnership with Amtrak and the FRA. To date, the following routes have been identified for this initiative:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Railroad                  Route                                                                              

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSX Transportation        Interstate 95 Corridor (continued implementation of the FRA-mandated plan of 2007)

Norfolk Southern          Chicago, IL to Porter, IN, to Cleveland, OH                                       

BNSF Railway              Chicago, IL to Denver, CO (California Zephyr)                                     

Canadian National Railway Chicago to Carbondale, IL                                                         

Canadian Pacific Railway  New York City, NY--Albany, NY--Montreal, CA (Adirondack)                          

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee understands that the Union Pacific and Amtrak have yet to reach an agreement on the appropriate route or segment to be included as part of this initiative.

The Committee hopes that, in focusing on just one route per railroad, the Secretary and the Administrator have not lost sight of the need to improve the on-time performance of the entire Amtrak network in the near term. The Committee hopes that the Secretary's initiative is intended as the precursor to a larger system-wide effort and not a short-lived exercise in `picking the low hanging fruit.'

The Committee believes that the administration should view an aggressive effort to improve Amtrak's on-time performance as wholly consistent with its vision for the future of rail passenger service. The administration has always bristled at the cost of Amtrak's operating subsidies and requested serious cuts or the elimination of such subsidies every year. Just this past March, the DOT Inspector General reported that improving the on-time performance of Amtrak's trains could have a dramatic impact in reducing Amtrak's needs for such operating subsidies. According to the IG, improving the performance of Amtrak's off-corridor trains to 85 percent on-time in 2006 would have reduced Amtrak's operating loss by 30 percent or more than $135,000,000.

The administration has also taken the position that expanded financial participation by the States must be central part of any effort to expand Amtrak's network. Yet, as you review the current on-time performance of Amtrak's many trains, some of the most unreliable services with the worst on-time performance are those that have been jointly funded by the States. Such examples include State-supported trains in Michigan, Missouri, and Vermont.

It's hard to fathom how Amtrak can succeed in answering the administration's challenge and entice the expanded financial participation of the States if new State-supported services are likely to be burdened with the same pathetically poor on-time performance as the current State-supported services.

The administration should also rise to the challenge of forcefully improving Amtrak's on-time performance because, at present, national rail policy on this topic is being made not by the Secretary or the Administrator, but rather by railroad executives and train dispatchers spread around the country. With the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act in October 1970, the Nation's freight railroads were allowed to pass the costs of their money-losing passenger services on to the newly created national passenger railroad--Amtrak. However, that law also required Amtrak trains operating over freight-owned track to be granted `preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing.' When the Committee asked the FRA Administrator in 2007 whether the freight railroads were uniformly complying with both the letter and spirit of this law, the Administrator testified that `I don't think there's uniformity in terms of the importance of this among the Class I railroads.' More recently, the DOT Inspector General conducted an audit of the freight railroads' dispatching practices when it comes to granting the statutory preference to Amtrak trains. The IG representative testified to the Committee that `by their practices, (the freight railroads) are in fact defining Amtrak's preference rights since they control the dispatching.'

The Committee finds the status quo as articulated by the Inspector General's office to be unacceptable and believes the administration should as well. Surely, the definition of a central element of the Rail Passenger Services Act should be determined by appropriately elected and appointed officials and not by the managers and dispatchers of individual freight railroads.

Senate Subcommittee Moves Funding Bill

The Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee approved its draft bill today. The bill would transfer $8.02 billion from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund, reversing a transfer done in 1998 according to Senate Transportation-HUD Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wa. The full Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up the bill on Thursday.

Here is what the Committee Reported:

Federal Railroad Administration: $1.816 billion, $254 million over FY 2008, and $725

million over the President’s request.

_ Amtrak -- $1.55 Billion, $225 million above FY 2008, and $750 million above the President’s request. In an era of record gas prices and congested highways, the committee rejects the Administration’s irresponsible cuts, and funds Amtrak at a level that reflects the vital role it plays in our national transportation system. Operating assistance is increased to $550 million which will keep all Amtrak routes operational and ensure the availability of funds for the

Retroactive wage payments called for under Amtrak’s newly-ratified labor contracts. Capital investment in Amtrak is increased to $1 billion – the highest single-year appropriation to address Amtrak’s aging capital plant and rail cars.

_ Capital Grants for Passenger Rail -- The bill also provides $100 million for capital

assistance to States to help spawn state-supported passenger rails services and eliminate hindrances to improved or expanded passenger rail service, including Amtrak.

Federal Transit Administration: $10.225 billion, $733 million above FY 2008, and $90

million above the President’s request. Transit provides an essential transportation alternative for commuters and families who are facing record gas prices.

_ Formula and Bus Grants -- $8.26 billion, $492 million above FY 2008.

_ New Starts -- The bill funds the New Starts program at $1.8 billion. This funding level is $188 million more than the Administration’s request and roughly $240 million more than the level enacted for fiscal year 2008. The New Starts Program invests in new transit systems and service expansions throughout the country.

The bill includes money to cover the $4 billion shortfall in the federal Highway Trust Fund, rejecting a House decision not to address the issue.

Senator Patty Murray, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriation’s subcommittee, said the draft spending bill would include a provision to transfer $8 billion from the general fund to the trust fund.

Murray will likely try to convince Senate leaders to include the transfer in a continuing resolution should the transportation spending bill not get done this fiscal year.

Murray said she and ranking Republican on the committee (Bond) agreed to fix the problem in their fiscal 2009 spending bill after numerous other failed attempts to shore up the trust fund, most recently by adding it to Federal Aviation Administration authorization legislation.

The approach is in stark contrast to what House lawmakers said just a few weeks ago.

At a June 20 markup, Murray’s counterpart, John W. Olver , D-Mass., said his committee would not address the shortfall in the panel’s appropriations bill.

Last summer, House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey of Wisconsin said anyone hoping that appropriators will dip into the Treasury to make up the difference will be disappointed.

“I’ve got news for you — it ain’t gonna happen,” Obey said.

Since the trust fund is filled from taxes collected on gasoline, it is expected that the revenues may decrease as people drive less due to higher fuel prices. There has been a consensus that the shortfall needs to be dealt with, but no one has agreed on any single approach.

Senate Panel to Recommend Funding for Transportation

July 9, 2008. The Senate Transportation/HUD Appropriations subcommittee will release its proposed funding bill with $53.3 billion in discretionary spending intended to reinvigorate the nation’s infrastructure and its fragile housing market.

This bill allocates $4.5 billion more than current funding and is $2.7 billion more than requested y the administration for transportation, housing, urban development and other independent agencies including the Washington, D.C., transit system. The bill is also the vehicle used to provide funding for passenger rail—Amtrak. The House version of this bill rejects proposed cuts to Amtrak, the essential air service program, and many housing programs.

The Subcommittee is allocating slightly less than its House counterpart, which approved its draft measure June 20 with $55 billion in discretionary spending. However, this limitation in discretionary spending always seems to hurt funding for intercity passenger rail because it is entirely dependent on the discretionary spending side of the ledger. If intercity rail passenger service had a dedicated source of funding this would not be as much of a problem.

In its January 2008 final report to Congress, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, clearly stated that “intercity passenger rail is … more energy efficient than many other modes of passenger transportation.”  The Commission recommended that intercity passenger rail be included in a transportation trust fund that would provide a permanent source of funding. The Commission also recognizes the environmental benefits of passenger rail. The report goes on to say that the average intercity passenger rail train produces 60 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than the average auto, and half the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile of an airplane.  Accordingly, it would only make sense for Congress to “ensure that transportation activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions receive a proportionate share of any revenue generated” by a tax on carbon or a cap and trade system to regulate carbon emissions.

The transportation subcommittee likely will approve the bill quickly today and wait until the full committee markup on Thursday (7/10/08) to take up amendments.

The transportation industry will be watching closely to see how the Senate deals with the looming threat of a deficit of almost $4 billion in the Highway Trust Fund. The House took a hands-off approach, declaring it the problem of the authorizing committees that overcommitted funding in the 2005 highway law.

A lively debate is expected during the markup regarding the Highway Trust Fund issue. The trust fund is projected to be about $3.7 billion in the red in fiscal 2009, as gas tax revenues that primarily finance it have fallen dramatically with higher gas prices and less driving by the public. The president’s budget proposed borrowing $3.3 billion from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund and taking other actions, but Transportation-HUD panel Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., at an April 3 hearing called the plan “unrealistic and irresponsible.” The House version of the bill rejects Bush’s recommendations, but takes no other action to replenish the trust fund. Saying “this shortfall is not of the committee’s making,” House panel chairman John W. Olver, D-Mass., argued it was up to the authorizing and tax-writing committees to find a solution. Democratic leaders in both chambers last month considered addressing the problem as part of an FAA extension bill by transferring $8 billion from the Treasury to the trust fund, but backed off from that plan. On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing examining the deteriorating state of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, and the current financial state of the Highway Trust Fund.

The subcommittee had its hands full divvying up money to programs plagued by problems. The Federal Aviation Administration has been the center of media attention because of chronic flight delays and airline mergers. The committee likely will restore the $272 million that the Bush administration requested be trimmed from FAA’s budget.

Senate Transportation Bill Action

7/8/2008. The Senate Transportation Appropriations subcommittee will release its draft proposal for funding transportation this Wednesday at 12 noon. The subcommittee has a $53.3 billion discretionary spending allocation, $4.5 billion more than current funding and $2.7 billion more than requested by the Bush administration. It is the discretionary pot of money that funds rail passenger service and other transportation programs not covered by guaranteed spending programs. The measure also releases tens of billions of dollars from the highway and aviation trust funds that don't count as discretionary spending for those federal activities. The full Senate Appropriations committee will act on this legislation the following day.

At a time when gas prices have surpassed the $4 per gallon mark, Americans are clamoring for alternatives to driving and flying. This is clearly a time when federal policy makers need to start thinking of expanding the capacity of passenger rail but they are stuck in a budget environment that makes growth and expansion very difficult.

Since 7 of 10 barrels of oil consumed in this country are directly related to transportation, reducing our dependence on foreign oil should start with a policy that encourages more energy efficient transportation—that means we need to shift more of our limited transportation resources to rail if we intend to begin to reduce our addiction to foreign oil. 

Supporters of rail passenger service should call the members of the Senate committee and encourage them to do more for rail passenger service.

A reprint from the Boston Globe

McCain's agenda on Amtrak

By Derrick Z. Jackson

The Boston Globe

July 1, 2008

TRAIN TRAVEL is finally becoming a third rail of politics. The first one to fry over it might be John McCain.

For years, McCain, in the comfort of cheap gasoline for autos and airplanes, made Amtrak a personal whipping boy. Despite the fact that governments in Western Europe and Asia zoomed far ahead of the United States by supporting high-speed trains to relieve congestion, promote tourism and now as we are coming to know, save the planet, McCain has spent considerable capital in denying the passenger rail system the capital to modernize.

In 2000, when he was chairman of the Senate Science, Commerce and Transportation committee, McCain killed $10 billion in capital funding for Amtrak. He denounced Amtrak as a symbol of government waste, claiming, "There's only two parts of the country that can support a viable rail system - the Northeast and the far West."

He made these claims though Amtrak inv