Steam & Excursion > Senate Amendment Threatens Funding for Transport Museum

http://heritageconsultinginc.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/sen-coburn-targeting-museums-again-advocacy-alert/

Please take action TODAY!!!
BREAKING NEWS (Sept. 14, 2009) – Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is planning to introduce an amendment EARLY THIS WEEK to the FY10 Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 3288) to prohibit the use of funds for transportation museums within the Transportation Enhancement Program.

Since 1992, the Transportation Enhancement Program has provided at least $110.6 million to support programs in transportation-related museums.

“This latest Coburn amendment drives home the importance of stepping up our museum advocacy efforts,” said AAM President Ford W. Bell. “The fact that some in Congress still don’t understand all the ways museums enrich our communities-as educators, as stewards of history and culture, and as economic engines-is cause for concern. I urge everyone in the museum field to call their two U.S. Senators today to try to stop this misguided amendment.”

The Senate is considering the Transportation Appropriations bill RIGHT NOW and is planning to vote on the legislation by Wednesday (Sept. 16), which means Sen. Coburn’s amendment could be introduced at ANY time.

Call your Senators TODAY and urge them to “VOTE NO on the Coburn amendment to block funds for Transportation Museums.”

To reach your Senators, call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senators’ offices.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/09 09:38 by nathansixchime.

And now live, from the Association of Railway Museums:

Dear ARM Members and Friends of ARM:

This is an extremely urgent message from the American Association of Museums that directly impacts many of our museums:

Just wanted to let you know that Sen. Coburn has begun offering amendments on the Senate Floor. It is not clear the order in which he will offer his several amendments, but NOW is a critical window to contact SENATE offices to urge a NO vote on any amendment that blocks funding for any transportation museums. Stay tuned for further updates.

Please call your Senators immediately!

Suzanne Grace, Executive Director
ARM

A thought:

While we all like trains, that argument won't likely get a lot of play in Congress. If you are going to add you voice, it might be good to emphasize the economic benefits railroad museums bring to their communities (many are in rural and disadvantaged areas and are often the main or a major tourism dollar draw in their region), the lengths to which these often volunteer supported organizations can stretch a dollar and the role they play in preserving a history that played and plays a MAJOR role in the development and ongoing prosperity of the country. The fact that many museums preserve cars with specific military history and applications is also worth mentioning.

Just my 2 cents.

Eugene Vicknair
Secretary, Feather River Rail Society

I took 5 minutes to email Senators Warner and Webb
of Virginia. I also sent a polite email to Senator Corburn
I think saving our history is worth a little money.
What if a little money had been there when most of the
steam engines were scrapped?

A big BOO to Senator Corburn

holiwood
NS B-Line MP 74



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/09 20:22 by holiwood.

Sorry folks but I'm with Senator Coburn on this one. The whole purpose of "Transportation Enhancement" legislation is to enhance (ie: improve) transportation. Museums don't improve transportation. We have enough need for highway rehabilatation, lane additions, traffic flow improvements, upgrades to the airways and waterways, not to mention railroad improvements (including AMTRAK). If you want to help fund museums look to community developement and economic stimulus programs etc. I'm all for that. This habit we have of appropriating money for some stated purpose then using it for other purposes is one of the reasons that we have run-away government spending. If you set aside money for "transportation enhancements" then spend a portion of it on other things (like museums), next year you will be asking for more money for the transportation enhancements that did not get done.
This is exactly what happened in New Orleans when money was appropriated for the levys, but the local politicians wanted to spend the money on other projects that were more likely to buy them votes in their next election. The levys did not get fixed or improved and the rest is history!

Kudos to Senator Coburn

Old Bob out in Lost Vegas

The one hitch in that, Bob, is that a lot of the community development money cannot be applied to railroad museums. You can get some of it for facilities improvements, but they won't fund things like rolling stock restoration. They consider that a transportation item.

Got no problem with your point. But the funding organizations need to adjust their definitions for it to work.

At least that's been my experience with it.

Z


PS: Got word the amendment was voted down.

zephyrus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PS: Got word the amendment was voted down.


Too bad! We need the infrastructure more than we need the museums.

There's a dozen different ways to take this. The biggest issue to be taken is that there are fewer alternatives to fill the void for museums in this case. No guarantee a different source of funding can be allocated. This doesn't PROMISE money to museums; they have to earn it and fight for it tooth and nail. It's not just handed out. I'm all for streamlining the allocation of funds to proper resources, but not at the rapid expense of beneficial entities that, by their lonesome, promote economic stimulus.

This doesn't mean MORE museums -- if anything it means specialty projects undertaken by museums have another source of funding, if it's justified by the awarding process. And the overall money spent is a drop in the financial ocean in comparison to highway building projects.

More funding for a flawed infrastructure? Like the 18.3% of transportation funds that go toward Landscaping and Scenic Beautification projects which includes “native wildflower planting.” *

*statistic cribbed from another discussion regarding this issue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/09 13:02 by nathansixchime.

The trouble is, as soon as we say "what's the problem with a little money going to US" we (the railroad preservationists) become a special interest, seeking to funnel money to our niche. The TEA grant wording is VERY broad and inclusive and I admit I think it's pork! However, in the grand scheme of things, if Washington is looking to save money, this is not the best choice. A tourist railroad or operating museum brings much to the entire community. Sad that like California, instead of cutting programs that benefit few, they hack at the Parks and Rec. budget that benefits ALL people. I guess they need to pay off the special interests or risk losing the votes.

I suggest cutting the "Essential Air Service" program that subsidizes commercial airline service to small communities all over the country. This is pure pork as most of the flights I used to fly into these communities often had no more than 3 passengers with the flights going empty about 50% of the time. Waste of hundreds of millions of dollars a year to accomplish nothing. (The idea was to stimulate commerce by offering air service. Never happened.)

Rob
Phoenix, AZ

nathansixchime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This doesn't mean MORE museums -- if anything it
> means specialty projects undertaken by museums
> have another source of funding, if it's justified
> by the awarding process. And the overall money
> spent is a drop in the financial ocean in
> comparison to highway building projects.
>
> More funding for a flawed infrastructure? Like the
> 18.3% of transportation funds that go toward
> Landscaping and Scenic Beautification projects
> which includes “native wildflower planting.”
> *
>
> *statistic cribbed from another discussion
> regarding this issue.

Just to be clear, that's 18.3% of Transportation Enhancement funds spent on landscaping and beautification projects, not 18.3% of total federal transportation funds.

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to a 2005 report on the Federal Transportation Enhancement program. Mostly provides overall summaries on the types of projects this program funds and breakdowns of funding for all states.

http://www.enhancements.org/misc/tedatafy04.pdf

Sounds like he heard that Sen. Reid sent a few million of 'transportation enhancement' money to the V.&T. Railway construction [after locals wouldn't tax themselves anymore]. He probably thought Oklahoma City taxpayers shouldn't pay for what Carson City taxpayers wouldn't support in their own backyard. Radical thought, that. I never thought that I'd see the day when railfans became a special interest lining up at the government trough. Amazing.