Passenger rail bill derails on Senate floor
A Union Pacific train transports coal. (Photo by Spenser Heaps/Utah News Dispatch)
The Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority will likely not see state funding from this session.
House Bill 848, which would have taken $2 million from the railroad car tax and directed it to the authority, failed 23-27 on second reading in the Senate. The tax brings in about $4 million annually and the money currently goes into the general fund.
'We are not deterred easily,' Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority chairman Dave Strohmaier said Wednesday after the floor vote. 'In spite of what may seem a setback, we're full steam ahead.'
The bill was carried by Rep. Denise Baum, D-Billings, who pushed for months to get movement on legislation. It found broad support from legislators in the House, as well as both the Senate and House transportation committees.
However, during its Senate transportation hearing, lobbyists representing large industry interests testified against the bill. Most of their issues were based around the railroad tax being used to fund the agency.
'I don't think any of the opponents would probably be here today if it weren't for the funding mechanism in this bill,' BNSF lobbyist Matt Jones said on April 9.
He added that new passenger rail should not interfere with existing freight rail and, 'the freight industry and freight customers should not be expected to subsidize passenger service.'
Montana Petroleum Association lobbyist Sonny Capece said it would contribute to congestion on the railway. He added it wasn't a viable option.
'Let the private industry do it. If private industry can make this profitable, let them do it,' Capece said. 'There's plenty of private railroads nationwide that exist on a profit-making model. This one is not one of them.'
Dan Bucks, former Director of Revenue for Montana and a proponent of the bill, said the legislation wouldn't have increased the tax. In fact, he said, he was familiar with the tax through his former position running the revenue department.
'It's nearly impossible for the state to even contemplate increasing the rail car tax because of a federal law called the 4R Act that sets very tight standards for how the tax is levied,' Bucks said.
Funding the authority could be a boon for everyone, he added.
'We are not focused simply on passenger rail, but also on improving the freight system for its own sake, for agricultural ship rules, mineral shippers and anybody else shipping out of Montana or using the rails for freight,' Bucks said during a hearing on April 9. 'We're interested in improving the freight service and the passenger service together so that we reduce any delay.'
Two lines in Montana have already been picked as viable routes for increased passenger rail. Both proposed passenger rail routes going through Montana would be longer than 750 miles, meaning the federal government would be primarily responsible for running the route.
It would cost billions to get passenger rail routes fully operational, but proponents of the legislation said much of the money would come from the federal government. Congress, in fact, would likely have to approve any spending on passenger rail of that magnitude.
And even then, HB 848's funding would have gone to figuring out where the major hurdles for passenger rail would be. It would also help them match and leverage federal funding to move the project forward.
'You have to have a steady or stable funding source to be able to unlock that match,' Baum said.
On the floor, the bill saw trouble immediately as Senators received a letter on their desk signed by lobbyists from the Treasure State Resource Association, the Montana Wood Products Association, the Montana Coal Council, the Montana Grain Growers Association, the Montana Agricultural Business Association, the Montana Petroleum Association, the Montana Grain Elevator Association, the Montana Mining Association, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation and the Montana Chamber of Commerce.
'Although HB 848 redirects receipts from an existing rail tax, it creates an unacceptable precedent where freight rail customers are subsidizing passenger rail initiatives,' according to the letter, which was distributed by Sen. Shelley Vance, R-Belgrade. 'Whether intentional or not, it also creates a potential expectation that freight shippers will be expected to contribute additional revenue in the future.
'Passenger rail does not benefit freight rail customers. In fact, it has the potential to interfere with the existing service we rely on.'
On the floor, the legislation saw some support, while detractors, including Majority Leader Tom McGillvary, R-Billings, essentially said passenger rail expansion was a fever dream.
'This is the most absurd bill I have seen this session,' McGillvary said. 'If you vote yes on this bill you're living in a fantasy land.'
Following the failed vote, the bill was indefinitely postponed.
There was some frustration from rail supporters about how the discussion went.
'There was a lack of understanding about what we've accomplished in the last four years,' Strohmaier said.
HB848-Letter
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California is the fight the White House wants
President Trump is getting the fight with California he wants as Democrats in the state criticize his decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles without local approval to deal with protests surrounding raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The unfolding events hit at the heart of key issues that Trump basks in: immigration and fighting liberal California Democrats. You can also add in law and order, as Trump and his team accuse California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and other local officials of being too soft on demonstrators destroying property and setting cars on fire. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Sunday reposted several images meant to convey the chaos in LA, including one showing huge plumes of smoke billowing from a burning vehicle as demonstrators watched, with one with holding Mexican flag. The post read, 'Let's check in on how LAPD's management of the 'protests' is going,' and criticized Newsom's slamming of Trump's decision to send the guard. A second Miller repost was from his White House colleague Taylor Budowich, who sent out a similar video of a masked protestor on a car surrounded by other burning cars and demonstrators in the streets. 'Democrat management,' the post said. Newsom has said California will sue the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard, while the White House maintains Trump intervened at the right time to restore law and order and that the violent attacks had already escalated before he stepped in. 'Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He's exacerbated the conditions. He's, you know, lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard — an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,' Newsom said on MSNBC. Just a few days ago, Trump was battling negative coverage of his public feud with erstwhile ally Elon Musk. The violence in LA allowed him to rapidly shift gears and put much of the focus on immigration even as his team pushed Congress to pass his signature legislation — which had triggered the battle with Musk. 'The riots in Los Angeles prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources. America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on the social platform X, calling for Senate passage of the House-passed 'one, big beautiful bill' with its funding measures for border security. The story even served to bring Musk back into the fold, with the tech mogul sending a number of supportive messages of the president that criticized Newsom and demonstrators. Trump ran on a platform of mass deportations. Since then, ICE raids, arrests of migrants at immigration courts and lawsuits over deportations have been a major part of his first few months in office. His administration has blamed Democrats, especially Biden, for allowing what they call an 'invasion' of migrants coming in at the nation's southern border, and White House briefings have often begun with spotlighting a deported migrant who committed a crime in the U.S. The images of masked demonstrators with Mexican flags falls right into this argument. That the protests are in California is also good for Trump. Trump has flirted with the idea of fining or nixing federal funding for the state, lashing out earlier this month after a transgender athlete was allowed to compete and win at a high school track and field meet. He also blamed Newsom, who is widely considered to be eying a presidential bid, for the wildfires that raged in the Los Angeles area in January and made his first trip as president to California to meet with him and survey damage. Newsom then visited Trump at the White House in February about aid for wildfire victims. The White House is now blaming Newsom for the protests in Los Angeles, bashing him for suing the administration instead of focusing on solutions. 'Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership is directly responsible for the lawless riots and violent attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles. Instead of filing baseless lawsuits meant to score political points with his left-wing base, Newsom should focus on protecting Americans by restoring law and order to his state,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. Trump on Sunday didn't rule out using the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military and federalize the National Guard in the event of an insurrection. He considered invoking the law in his first term during the 2020 protests over police brutality, but officials like former Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back at the time. 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden and his auto pen,' Trump said Sunday. The president also said that if California officials stand in the way of federal officials deporting migrants, they will face federal charges. 'We're just going to see what happens. If we think there's a serious insurrection … we're going to have law and order,' he said. California Democrats are responding to Trump by calling on residents to not turn to violence while protesting, arguing that the president's move to bring in the National Guard was meant to provoke the chaos. 'Angelenos — don't engage in violence and chaos. Don't give the administration what they want,' Mayor Karen Bass said on X. Similarly, Newsom warned other states about Trump federalizing the National Guard and accused him of escalating the situation. 'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,' Newsom said on X. 'He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ActBlue fires back at GOP investigation, saying it appears unconstitutional and partisan
ActBlue is fighting back against a House Republican investigation into its workings, saying the probe appears to have become an unconstitutional abuse of power to help the White House. The Democratic online fundraising platform said Monday in a letter obtained by POLITICO that it was reevaluating whether to cooperate with the ongoing congressional investigation into fraud on its platform in light of President Donald Trump's executive action to investigate potential foreign contributions on ActBlue and House Republicans' public statements supporting the White House. 'If the Committees are now working to gather information on behalf of Department of Justice prosecutors, rather than for legitimate legislative purposes, that would fundamentally transform the nature of your investigation — and violate ActBlue's constitutional rights,' ActBlue's lawyers wrote in the letter Monday to GOP Reps. Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil. The allegations are an escalation in the conflict between House Republicans and ActBlue, the behemoth Democratic fundraising platform that has long been in GOP crosshairs as it has helped the left build a massive fundraising advantage. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones told POLITICO last month that ActBlue believes the platform has 'nothing to hide' but needs to better communicate its role in light of the attacks. In the letter, lawyers representing ActBlue ask the congressional committees investigating the platform to clarify the purpose of their work. They argue public statements from Jordan, Comer and Steil indicate they are seeking to help the Trump Justice Department's separate investigation into ActBlue, rather than carry out congressional oversight. And they note that the "selective focus" of the investigation does not appear to include WinRed, the GOP's primary online fundraising counterpart — and thus may be intended to hurt Democrats, not provide legitimate oversight of American elections. 'The Committees' selective focus on ActBlue also suggests that the investigation may be a partisan effort directed at harming political opponents rather than gathering facts to assist in lawmaking efforts,' the letter reads. 'Such an action would raise substantial First Amendment concerns.' Spokespeople for the GOP committees investigating ActBlue did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday afternoon. A spokesperson for ActBlue also did not immediately comment. The letter comes as the Trump administration is also going after ActBlue. Trump signed a memorandum in April ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the potential use of foreign 'straw' donations in online fundraising, citing concerns about foreign influence in elections based in part on the work of the GOP-led congressional committees. ActBlue was the only platform named in the order. The memorandum calls for Bondi to report back in 90 days, which would be late July. Under federal law, only U.S. citizens and green card holders can give to campaigns and political action committees. Republicans have long argued that ActBlue, which processed billions of dollars in donations for Democrats last year, is not strict enough in weeding out potential foreign contributions. ActBlue has countered that it has processes to catch illegal donation attempts and that similar challenges exist on other platforms, including WinRed. The platform's lawyers also suggested that ActBlue's further cooperation with the congressional probes could depend on the extent of the committees' work with the Justice Department. 'In light of your public statements, it is essential that we receive more information about your agreement to coordinate the Committees' activities with the Executive Branch, so that ActBlue may properly evaluate its ongoing efforts to cooperate with the Committees,' the platform's lawyers wrote. ActBlue previously turned over thousands of pages of internal documents to the committees, some voluntarily, and then later under subpoena. The committees released an interim report in April that cited cases of fraud identified in the ActBlue documents as a means to argue that the platform had an 'unserious' approach to fraud prevention.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
