Senate Amtrak 2015 re-authorization bill

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

afigg

Engineer
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
5,896
Location
Virginia
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has approved a railroad and Amtrak re-authorization act that provides for more money and is more favorable to Amtrak than the House PRRIA act. If the Senate bill get passed by the entire Senate, then the 2 bills will go to the reconciliation committee. So there are months of haggling ahead.

The Hill: Senate panel approves $9B Amtrak bill. Excerpt:

The Senate committee overseeing the nation's infrastructure on Thursday approved a plan to spend nearly $9 billion on Amtrak over the next four years after a deadly crash reignited a debate in Washington about the rail service's funding.

The measure, which calls for spending approximately $1.65 billion annually on Amtrak and $570 million per year on rail grants, was unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The sponsors of the measure, Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), said the approval signifies the desire in Congress to give Amtrak funding to make safety improvements, especially on its heavily traveled tracks in the Northeast Corridor that were home to the deadly crash last month.

“Investing in our nation’s rail system is important to economic growth,” Wicker said of the measure, which is known as the "Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act.”
This article does not provide many specifics on the Senate bill, have to find others that do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The official name of the bill is "Railroad Reform, Enhancement and Efficiency Act 2015" and its official number is S.1626

From Railway Age: The Booker/Wicker Bill Advances in Senate

From NARP: Senate Passenger Rail Bill: A Huge Leap Forward

More information will show up at https://www.opencongress.org/bill/s1626-114/showas it becomes available.

Looks like our extended meeting with Cory Booker's staff was useful. Some of the ideas discussed are in the bill as far as I can tell from the Railway Age article
 
I have just emailed Cory Booker thanking him for cosponsoring this bill. When he was in NJ, he rescued a woman from a fire and also was able to work with our governor (not sure which was harder :p ), so he seems to be a pretty proactive guy and a good one to have as an Amtrak advocate.
 
Outstanding news! Hopefully NARP and Amtrak Joe will keep the heat on the conference committee since the "Squeaky wheel gets the grease!"

We railfans here in Texas miss Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate, our two guys are empty suits!
 
I hope I've read it correctly, but it looks like the states that sponsor corridor services will get more say over Amtrak. Will this mean naming some of the directors?
 
I hope I've read it correctly, but it looks like the states that sponsor corridor services will get more say over Amtrak. Will this mean naming some of the directors?
I haven't read the bill itself so there's a danger in me saying anything definitive, but I believe the arrangement that is intended (based on comments made in April which we were asked not to speak about until the bill came out) to be two directors from the NEC, two representing the state-sponsored corridors, and two representing the National Network.
 
Outstanding news! Hopefully NARP and Amtrak Joe will keep the heat on the conference committee since the "Squeaky wheel gets the grease!"

We railfans here in Texas miss Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate, our two guys are empty suits!
Supporting Amtrak was probably the only thing that KBH and I ever agreed upon. That being said, she was a calm and rational genius compared to the tantrum throwing nutcase we elected to replace her. Or maybe he's the genius and it's the people who elected him that are the nutcases. Either way Texas has made it clear that we're not ready to grow up and work with the rest of the country toward anything that sounds remotely like a common goal for the greater good. Now more than ever it's our way or the highway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope I've read it correctly, but it looks like the states that sponsor corridor services will get more say over Amtrak. Will this mean naming some of the directors?
I haven't read the bill itself so there's a danger in me saying anything definitive, but I believe the arrangement that is intended (based on comments made in April which we were asked not to speak about until the bill came out) to be two directors from the NEC, two representing the state-sponsored corridors, and two representing the National Network.
Text is up at the link in my above post.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Amtrak Board of Directors (referred to in this section as the ‘Board’) is composed of the following 9 directors, each of whom must be a citizen of the United States:

“(A) The Secretary of Transportation.

“(B) The President of Amtrak.

“© 7 individuals appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, with general business and financial experience, experience or qualifications in transportation, freight and passenger rail transportation, travel, hospitality, or passenger air transportation businesses, or representatives of employees or users of passenger rail transportation or a State government.

“(2) SELECTION.—In selecting individuals described in paragraph (1)© for nominations for appointments to the Board, the President shall consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate. The individuals appointed to the Board under paragraph (1)© shall be composed of the following;

“(A) 2 individuals from the Northeast Corridor.

“(B) 4 individuals from regions of the country outside of the Northeast Corridor and geographically distributed with—

“(i) 2 individuals from States with long-distance routes operated by Amtrak; and

“(ii) 2 individuals from States with State-supported routes operated by Amtrak.

“© 1 individual from the Northeast Corridor or a State with long-distance or State-supported routes.
 
Thanks for the info. Hopefully, this may reduce the number of political hacks getting on the board who are clueless about railroads and transit operations.
 
I hope I've read it correctly, but it looks like the states that sponsor corridor services will get more say over Amtrak. Will this mean naming some of the directors?
I haven't read the bill itself so there's a danger in me saying anything definitive, but I believe the arrangement that is intended (based on comments made in April which we were asked not to speak about until the bill came out) to be two directors from the NEC, two representing the state-sponsored corridors, and two representing the National Network.
Text is up at the link in my above post.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Amtrak Board of Directors (referred to in this section as the ‘Board’) is composed of the following 9 directors, each of whom must be a citizen of the United States:

“(A) The Secretary of Transportation.

“(B) The President of Amtrak.

“© 7 individuals appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, with general business and financial experience, experience or qualifications in transportation, freight and passenger rail transportation, travel, hospitality, or passenger air transportation businesses, or representatives of employees or users of passenger rail transportation or a State government.

“(2) SELECTION.—In selecting individuals described in paragraph (1)© for nominations for appointments to the Board, the President shall consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate. The individuals appointed to the Board under paragraph (1)© shall be composed of the following;

“(A) 2 individuals from the Northeast Corridor.

“(B) 4 individuals from regions of the country outside of the Northeast Corridor and geographically distributed with—

“(i) 2 individuals from States with long-distance routes operated by Amtrak; and

“(ii) 2 individuals from States with State-supported routes operated by Amtrak.

“© 1 individual from the Northeast Corridor or a State with long-distance or State-supported routes.
There aren't many states with corridor service that are without LD service. Michigan, Vermont, and Maine come to mind. Mostly the corridors overlap the LD routes. (Why it seems so silly to pit one vs the other, when they are complimentary.) So this language really means 4 or 5 individuals from states outside the NEC. It's not gonna make much difference and seems harmless.
 
The draft Senate transportation authorization bill has been released. The Hill: Senate unveils 1,030-page highway bill. I did a quick skim, lots of sections on Amtrak reform, stuff like allowing other companies to bid on operating a long distance train, eliminating food & beverage losses in 4 years, NEC funding. Change may be coming to Amtrak and the LD system, whether we like it or not.
 
The draft Senate transportation authorization bill has been released. The Hill: Senate unveils 1,030-page highway bill. I did a quick skim, lots of sections on Amtrak reform, stuff like allowing other companies to bid on operating a long distance train, eliminating food & beverage losses in 4 years, NEC funding. Change may be coming to Amtrak and the LD system, whether we like it or not.
This is going to get very interesting.
 
It is my understanding that RIFIA is proposed to deal with changes to the RRIF loan process.

Is the 35 year repayment period still the same, or is it going to be pushed back to 50 years?

How does this bill impact the Gateway Project?
 
RIFIA is a separate bill as described in

http://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=217

It is a separate bill from what is the popularly referred to as "Highway Bill" that is this 1030 page document a draft of. This bill has to pass for the Highway Trust Fund to be be reinstated., It expires on July 31st. Amtrak and Transit is going along for the ride on its back for now. :)
 
RIFIA is a separate bill as described in

http://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=217

It is a separate bill from what is the popularly referred to as "Highway Bill" that is this 1030 page document a draft of. This bill has to pass for the Highway Trust Fund to be be reinstated., It expires on July 31st. Amtrak and Transit is going along for the ride on its back for now. :)

If this transportation bill gets passed, I thought that the Amtrak reauthorization was a part of it?

Do you that RIFIA will ever become law?

Will Booker's bill call for reinstating future NEC profits back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know how the Senate voted today for the new transportation bill?
You could go to the TheHill.com website and see what happened in the Senate today. Looks like the Senate voted on amendments today, but the six year transportation bill (with only 3 years funded) is still being revised in the Senate. Checking the transportation articles on the TheHill website, the original bill slashed transit funding, but the long accepted 80-20 spilt (80% roads, 20% transit) was restored to get Democratic votes.

However, even if the Senate does pass a decent transportation bill this week, it will be a different bill than what the House passed. Then the bills will go to a reconciliation committee where there are almost always attempts made to gut programs or stick in poison pill rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the additional stuff that has gotten tagged on to the Highway Bill, it seems to me that reconciliation with the House has just become a lot more difficult. Will be interesting to see how it goes. I wonder if they will actually manage to get a new 6 year bill done by 31st July or they will revert to the 5 month extension thing that the House has in its back pocket.

It is interesting though that the Republican leadership in Senate put a huge leash on Ted Cruz for a change. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or go straight to the source and check out senate.gov, or Thomas.gov. They spent time on the bill yesterday, but it didn't go to a vote.
That works to see what is in the draft bill, although parsing a 1,000 page transportation bill is not a quick read. Checking the Senate or Thomas.gov sites doesn't work very well for making sense of the amendments that may get stuck in on short notice and the parliamentary maneuvers. While the thehill.com, politico.com, rollcall.com news sites tend to focus more on the politics than the content of the bills, they can be useful to follow what is going on with the funding bills.
 
Given the additional stuff that has gotten tagged on to the Highway Bill, it seems to me that reconciliation with the House has just become a lot more difficult. Will be interesting to see how it goes. I wonder if they will actually manage to get a new 6 year bill done by 31st July or they will revert to the 5 month extension thing that the House has in its back pocket.
The Senate and the House are playing a game of who blinks first on taking the House 5 month extension or the Senate 6/3 year bill. My money would be on an extension, maybe a shorter one than 5 months, so a reconciliation committee can hammer out a joint bill in September.

This TheHill article explains the deadlines that are in play: This week: Congress speeds toward highway funding deadline. If the Senate passes it transportation bill by Wednesday, they may force Boehner and the House to consider the Senate bill. Which is full of revenue gimmicks to make up the shortfall in gas tax revenue as is the proposed House bill. All of which could be avoided by raising the gas tax 12 or 14 cents a gallon to adjust for inflation and improvements in fuel economy since 1993. But our political system can't do the obvious fixes anymore.

Excerpt:

House leadership has offered a cool reception to the six-year Senate bill, while McConnell and Senate GOP leaders hope the July 31 deadline will force the House's hand.

The House plans to depart Washington for the five-week summer recess on Thursday afternoon. House Republican and Democratic leaders are still pushing the five-month patch approved by the chamber earlier this month.

If the Senate passes its bill in time, it’s unclear if the House will take it up. Members of both parties have expressed concern about the Senate measure providing offsets for only three of the six years of transportation policy it authorizes.
 
They can always adopt the 5 month extension and then whenever the more complete bill is ready, have it supersede the remainder of the 5 moth period bill. It is not clear that they will have the stomach for conjuring up yet another bill for a shorter period. But I suppose anything is possible.
 
Given the additional stuff that has gotten tagged on to the Highway Bill, it seems to me that reconciliation with the House has just become a lot more difficult. Will be interesting to see how it goes. I wonder if they will actually manage to get a new 6 year bill done by 31st July or they will revert to the 5 month extension thing that the House has in its back pocket.
The Senate and the House are playing a game of who blinks first on taking the House 5 month extension or the Senate 6/3 year bill. My money would be on an extension, maybe a shorter one than 5 months, so a reconciliation committee can hammer out a joint bill in September.

This TheHill article explains the deadlines that are in play: This week: Congress speeds toward highway funding deadline. If the Senate passes it transportation bill by Wednesday, they may force Boehner and the House to consider the Senate bill. Which is full of revenue gimmicks to make up the shortfall in gas tax revenue as is the proposed House bill. All of which could be avoided by raising the gas tax 12 or 14 cents a gallon to adjust for inflation and improvements in fuel economy since 1993. But our political system can't do the obvious fixes anymore.

Excerpt:

House leadership has offered a cool reception to the six-year Senate bill, while McConnell and Senate GOP leaders hope the July 31 deadline will force the House's hand.

The House plans to depart Washington for the five-week summer recess on Thursday afternoon. House Republican and Democratic leaders are still pushing the five-month patch approved by the chamber earlier this month.

If the Senate passes its bill in time, it’s unclear if the House will take it up. Members of both parties have expressed concern about the Senate measure providing offsets for only three of the six years of transportation policy it authorizes.
They can always adopt the 5 month extension and then whenever the more complete bill is ready, have it supersede the remainder of the 5 moth period bill. It is not clear that they will have the stomach for conjuring up yet another bill for a shorter period. But I suppose anything is possible.
Are you saying a five month extension is likely--and then a multi-year bill will follow?
 
Back
Top