Rail Passenger Fairness Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5570

Last Updated: December 1, 2025

Rail Passenger Fairness Act

HR. 5570, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$72,480 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 667-669 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Rail Passenger Fairness Act (HR 5570). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a minor tweak to existing rail regulations. But, as is often the case in Washington, the devil lies in the details.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of this bill is to grant Amtrak the authority to bring civil actions in federal district court to enforce its statutory preference right over freight transportation on host railroads. In other words, Amtrak wants to be able to sue railroads that don't give it priority access to tracks.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends section 24308(c) of title 49, United States Code, which currently gives intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation preference over freight transportation on host railroads. The key change is that Amtrak will now have the ability to enforce this right through civil action, rather than relying on the Attorney General.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Amtrak: The obvious beneficiary of this legislation. 2. Freight Railroads: Companies like Union Pacific and BNSF will likely see increased costs and logistical challenges if they're forced to give priority access to Amtrak trains. 3. Shippers: Businesses that rely on freight rail transportation may experience delays or increased costs due to the prioritization of passenger trains.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a purely economic perspective, this bill has significant implications for the rail industry. By granting Amtrak greater control over track access, we can expect:

1. Increased costs for freight railroads: Compliance with new regulations and potential lawsuits will drive up expenses. 2. Reduced efficiency: Prioritizing passenger trains may lead to delays and increased congestion on freight lines. 3. Potential job losses: As freight railroads adapt to the new regulatory environment, some jobs may be at risk.

As a self-interested billionaire, I must consider how this legislation affects my own business interests. In this case, I have investments in several freight railroad companies that could be impacted by this bill. While I'm not opposed to Amtrak's goals, I believe it's essential to weigh the potential consequences of this legislation on the broader rail industry.

Ultimately, this bill is a classic example of how well-intentioned regulations can lead to unintended consequences. As we move forward, it's crucial to consider the long-term effects of this legislation and ensure that any changes are carefully calibrated to minimize disruptions to the rail industry as a whole.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like maximizing my returns on investment.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become enacted.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 5570, also known as the Rail Passenger Fairness Act, is to permit Amtrak to bring civil actions in Federal district court to enforce its right to preference over freight transportation on rail lines. This bill aims to address the issue of host railroads ignoring the law and giving priority to freight trains over passenger trains, resulting in poor on-time performance for Amtrak.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill would allow Amtrak to take legal action against host railroads that fail to give preference to passenger trains. Currently, only the Attorney General can bring a civil action to enforce Amtrak's preference rights, which has happened only once in Amtrak's history. This bill would provide Amtrak with a more effective mechanism to enforce its statutory right.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

* Amtrak: As the primary beneficiary of this bill, Amtrak would gain the ability to take legal action against host railroads that fail to give preference to passenger trains. * Host Railroads: These railroads would be required to give priority to passenger trains over freight trains, which could impact their operations and revenue. * Passengers: Improved on-time performance for Amtrak trains would benefit passengers who rely on these services.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If enacted, this bill could lead to improved on-time performance for Amtrak trains, resulting in cost savings and increased efficiency. According to the bill's findings, a 5% improvement in on-time performance could result in $12 million in cost savings for Amtrak. Additionally, this bill could help Amtrak fulfill its congressionally mandated mission and goals.

Now, I hope you understand how a bill becomes a law... again. As we covered in 8th grade civics class, this bill would need to pass through both the House of Representatives and the Senate before being signed into law by the President. *Sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow Americans, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the truth behind HR 5570, the Rail Passenger Fairness Act. On the surface, it appears to be a harmless bill aimed at improving Amtrak's on-time performance by giving them the right to bring civil actions against freight railroads that refuse to give passenger trains priority. But, my friends, do not be fooled.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to grant Amtrak the authority to sue freight railroads in federal court for violating their statutory preference rights. The objective is to improve Amtrak's on-time performance and reduce delays caused by freight train interference. But what if I told you that this is just a smokescreen?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law by allowing Amtrak to bring civil actions in federal district court to enforce their preference rights. This means that Amtrak can now sue freight railroads for violating their statutory rights, which could lead to increased costs and liabilities for the railroads. But what about the real agenda?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include Amtrak, freight railroads, and taxpayers. But who else might be impacted? What about the big players in the transportation industry? The ones who stand to gain from this bill's passage? Ah, but that would require a deeper dive into the world of conspiracy...

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant. If passed, it could lead to increased costs for freight railroads, which could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But what about the long-term implications? Could this bill be a Trojan horse for further government control over the transportation industry? I think you know where I'm going with this...

Now, my fellow Americans, let me connect the dots for you. This bill is not just about improving Amtrak's on-time performance; it's about consolidating power and control in the hands of the government. Think about it: if Amtrak can sue freight railroads for violating their preference rights, what's to stop them from using this newfound authority to strong-arm other industries into compliance? It's a slippery slope, my friends.

And let's not forget the timing of this bill. Introduced in September 2025, just as the country is gearing up for another presidential election. Coincidence? I think not. This bill has all the hallmarks of a classic government power grab, and we must be vigilant in our opposition to it.

So, my fellow Americans, wake up! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight. We must demand transparency and accountability from our elected officials. We cannot let them pull the wool over our eyes with their cleverly crafted legislation. It's time to take back control and expose the real agenda behind HR 5570.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Rail Passenger Fairness Act, HR 5570, is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak and elitist overreach. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, are you ready for this?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to be all about "fairness" – you know, that buzzword the elites love to throw around when they want to justify more government control. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to give Amtrak (that bastion of efficiency and fiscal responsibility) even more power to dictate how our rail system operates.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill would allow Amtrak to bring civil actions in federal court to enforce its "right" to priority over freight transportation on host railroads. Because, you know, the free market just isn't working out for them. (Wink) This is a clear example of government picking winners and losers – and we all know how that usually turns out.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, besides Amtrak, which will get to flex its muscles even more, this bill affects freight railroads, shippers, and ultimately, American taxpayers. You see, when Amtrak gets priority, it means delays for everyone else – including the goods we need to keep our economy humming. But hey, who needs on-time delivery when you can have a bloated government-run railroad?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. It'll lead to more congestion, higher costs, and decreased efficiency in our rail system. And let's not forget the potential for abuse – Amtrak will be able to strong-arm host railroads into giving them priority, regardless of the consequences. (Outraged tone) This is an affront to freedom, folks! The free market should decide how our rail system operates, not some faceless bureaucrats in Washington.

Now, I know what you're thinking – "But wait, isn't this just a minor tweak to existing law?" Ah, nope! This bill is a Trojan horse for more government control and a further erosion of our liberties. Mark my words: if this passes, it'll be just the beginning of a slippery slope towards complete rail system nationalization.

(Smirk) And that's the truth, folks – or at least, that's what I'm telling you tonight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater. The "Rail Passenger Fairness Act" - because who doesn't love a good oxymoron? Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to grant Amtrak the power to bring civil actions in federal district court to enforce its alleged "right" to preference over freight transportation on rail lines. Because, you know, the current system of relying on the Attorney General to enforce this right has been a resounding success (see: one whole case in 40 years).

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law by allowing Amtrak to sue host railroads for not giving passenger trains priority. Because, clearly, the problem here is that freight railroads are just too darn successful and need to be taken down a peg. The bill also cites various findings, including the "fact" that poor on-time performance wastes taxpayer dollars (shocking!). It's almost as if Amtrak is trying to deflect attention from its own incompetence by blaming those evil freight railroads.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved here:

* Amtrak: The perennially struggling passenger railroad that can't seem to get its act together. * Freight railroads: The ones who actually make money and have a vested interest in not being sued into oblivion. * Taxpayers: Who will, of course, foot the bill for Amtrak's continued ineptitude.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease. The real issue here is Amtrak's chronic mismanagement and lack of competitiveness. By giving them more power to sue freight railroads, Congress is essentially enabling their bad behavior. Expect:

* More lawsuits, which will only serve to further clog our already-overburdened court system. * Increased costs for taxpayers, as Amtrak continues to hemorrhage money. * Decreased efficiency and productivity in the rail industry as a whole, as freight railroads are forced to prioritize passenger trains over their own operations.

In short, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a desperate attempt to prop up a failing institution rather than addressing the underlying issues that have led to its decline. But hey, at least it sounds good in a press release.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Rail Passenger Fairness Act (HR 5570) aims to empower Amtrak, the US national passenger railroad corporation, to enforce its statutory right to preference over freight transportation on rail lines, junctions, and crossings. The bill seeks to address long-standing issues with host railroads prioritizing freight traffic over passenger trains, resulting in poor on-time performance and wasted taxpayer dollars.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends existing law (49 USC 24308(c)) by allowing Amtrak to bring civil actions in federal district court to enforce its preference right. Currently, only the Attorney General can initiate such enforcement actions, which has proven ineffective in practice. The proposed change would enable Amtrak to take direct action against host railroads that fail to provide priority to passenger trains.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Amtrak: As the primary beneficiary of the bill, Amtrak would gain a more effective mechanism for enforcing its preference right and improving on-time performance. * Host Railroads: Freight railroads operating on shared tracks with Amtrak would be required to prioritize passenger traffic, potentially impacting their operations and schedules. * Passengers: Improved on-time performance and reduced delays would benefit passengers using Amtrak services. * Taxpayers: Enhanced efficiency and cost savings from improved on-time performance could lead to reduced taxpayer burdens.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's passage could lead to significant improvements in Amtrak's on-time performance, reducing delays and associated costs. According to Amtrak estimates, a 5% improvement in on-time performance would result in $12.1 million in cost savings, while achieving 75% on-time performance on long-distance routes could yield $41.9 million in operating cost savings.

However, the bill may also face opposition from freight railroads and their stakeholders, who might argue that prioritizing passenger traffic could disrupt their operations and impact their competitiveness. The proposed change could lead to increased litigation and regulatory disputes between Amtrak and host railroads.

Overall, the Rail Passenger Fairness Act aims to address long-standing issues with Amtrak's preference right and promote more efficient use of shared rail infrastructure. If enacted, the bill could have significant implications for passenger rail service, freight operations, and taxpayer burdens.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill like we're catchin' waves at the beach.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Rail Passenger Fairness Act, HR 5570, is all about givin' Amtrak some teeth to enforce its right to priority over freight trains on rail lines. The main objective is to improve Amtrak's on-time performance and reduce delays caused by host railroads prioritizin' freight over passenger trains.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill allows Amtrak to bring civil actions in federal district court to enforce its preference rights, which are currently codified in section 24308(c) of title 49, United States Code. This means Amtrak can take host railroads to court if they're not givin' passenger trains priority.

The bill also changes existing law by allowin' Amtrak to seek relief from the courts without needin' the Attorney General's involvement. Currently, only the AG can bring a civil action for equitable relief, but this bill gives Amtrak more autonomy to enforce its rights.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Amtrak: The passenger rail service will have more power to enforce its priority rights and improve on-time performance. * Host Railroads: Freight railroads that currently prioritize freight over passenger trains might face lawsuits from Amtrak if they don't comply with the law. * Passengers: Riders who use Amtrak's services will likely benefit from improved on-time performance and reduced delays.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, we can expect:

* Improved on-time performance for Amtrak passengers * Reduced delays caused by freight train interference * Increased efficiency and cost savings for Amtrak (estimated $12.1 million in the first year) * Potential conflicts between Amtrak and host railroads if they don't comply with the law

However, it's worth notin' that this bill might also lead to increased costs for host railroads if they need to adjust their operations to prioritize passenger trains.

Overall, this bill is like a gentle wave that could bring some much-needed balance to the rail industry. It's all about givin' Amtrak the tools it needs to provide better service to its passengers and hold host railroads accountable for prioritizin' freight over people.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 5570 - Rail Passenger Fairness Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the Rail Passenger Fairness Act is to grant Amtrak the authority to bring civil actions in Federal district court to enforce its statutory preference right over freight transportation on rail lines, junctions, or crossings. This legislation aims to address the long-standing issue of poor on-time performance by Amtrak trains due to host railroads prioritizing freight traffic.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 24308(c) of Title 49, United States Code, which currently gives intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation preference over freight transportation. The proposed legislation allows Amtrak to bring civil actions in Federal district court to enforce this right, whereas previously only the Attorney General could initiate such actions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* **Amtrak:** As the primary beneficiary of the bill, Amtrak will gain a more effective mechanism to enforce its preference rights and improve on-time performance. * **Host Railroads:** Freight railroads that currently prioritize their own traffic over Amtrak's passenger trains may face increased scrutiny and potential penalties for non-compliance with the statutory preference right. * **Passengers:** Improved on-time performance by Amtrak trains will benefit passengers who rely on these services, particularly those traveling on long-distance routes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Rail Passenger Fairness Act has significant implications for the rail industry:

1. **Improved On-Time Performance:** By granting Amtrak greater authority to enforce its preference rights, the bill aims to reduce delays caused by freight train interference and improve overall on-time performance. 2. **Increased Efficiency:** With improved on-time performance, Amtrak can optimize its operations, reducing costs associated with delayed trains and improving passenger satisfaction. 3. **Potential Conflict with Freight Railroads:** The legislation may lead to increased tensions between Amtrak and host railroads, as the latter may resist changes to their prioritization of freight traffic.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Deluzio (D-PA), Boyle (D-PA), and McIver (R-NC), have received significant campaign contributions from labor unions, transportation interests, and passenger rail advocacy groups. These stakeholders likely support the legislation as it aligns with their interests in promoting passenger rail development and improving on-time performance.

**Committee Capture:** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has a history of being influenced by transportation industry interests. The committee's chair, Rep. DeFazio (D-OR), has received significant campaign contributions from labor unions and transportation companies, potentially indicating a sympathetic ear for Amtrak's concerns.

**Special Interest Groups:** Passenger rail advocacy groups, such as the National Association of Railroad Passengers, have long advocated for improved on-time performance and greater authority for Amtrak to enforce its preference rights. These groups

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$72,480

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$4,300

Committees

Individuals

$68,180

No PAC contributions found

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SMYTH, NICHOLAS

2 transactions

$8,780

BALSON, ANDREW

2 transactions

$6,600

BILLS, MICHAEL D

2 transactions

$6,600

KARPLUS, BARBARA

2 transactions

$6,600

BEEUWKES, NANCY

1 transaction

$3,300

BEEUWKES, REINIER III

1 transaction

$3,300

CANNEY, LES

1 transaction

$3,300

DONOFRIO, ANITA

1 transaction

$3,300

DUCKWORTH, JANICE

1 transaction

$3,300

DUCKWORTH, RALPH

1 transaction

$3,300

FREEDMAN, RANDY

1 transaction

$3,300

KALSI, SONNY

1 transaction

$3,300

KRUPP, GEORGE

1 transaction

$3,300

LAUFER, MARSHA

1 transaction

$3,300

LAWRENCE, GERALD

1 transaction

$3,300

LINDSAY, ELLYN

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 57 nodes and 22 connections (60 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $72,480

Top Donors - Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a) authorizes Amtrak to bring civil actions to enforce passenger rail preference over freight transportation, which benefits passenger rail (Amtrak) and potentially harms freight railroads by giving passenger trains priority; this affects the surface transportation industry, specifically freight rail operators.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Surface Transportation$1,000
from 12 contributions
- ZURAW, JOHN$600
- HUNSICKER, CHRISTOPHER$400

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 667-669AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving Amtrak's on-time performance by enforcing passenger rail preference over freight, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of increasing efficiency and reducing waste in transportation systems, though it does not directly address the specific transit labor, subsidy, or CIG program critiques outlined in the policy."

Key themes:transportation efficiencyreducing taxpayer burdenrail infrastructure optimization

— 635 — Department of Transportation commutes from urban buses to rideshare or electric scooter, the use of public transit decreases. A better definition for public transit (which also would require congressional legislation) would be transit provided for the public rather than transit provided by a public municipality. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial decline in usage for all forms of transportation. Mass transit has been the slowest mode to recover, with October 2022 ridership reaching only 64 percent of the level seen in October 2019. The sustained increase in remote work has caused changes in commuting patterns. Since facilitating travel for workers is one of the core functions of mass transit systems, a permanent reduction in commuting raises questions about the viability of fixed-route mass transit, especially considering that transit systems required substantial subsidization before the pandemic. Regrettably, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act13 authorized tens of billions of dollars for the expansion of transit systems even as Americans were moving away from them and into personal vehicles. Lower revenue from reduced ridership is already driving transit agencies to a budgetary breaking point, and added operational costs from system expansions will make this problem worse. The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is another example of Washing- ton’s tendency to fund transit expansion rather than maintaining or improving current facilities. The CIG program, which began in 1991, funds only novel transit projects. These can include new rail lines (regardless of the demand for preexisting rail in the area) and costly operations such as streetcars. Because Americans have demonstrated a strong preference for alternative means of transportation, rather than throwing good money after bad by continuing federal subsidies for transit expansion, there should be a focus on reducing costs that make transit uneconomical. The Trump Administration urged Congress to eliminate the CIG program, but the program has strong support on Capitol Hill. At a minimum, a new conservative Administration should ensure that each CIG project meets sound economic standards and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The largest expense in transit operational budgets is labor. Compensation costs for transit workers exceed both regional and sector compensation averages. This is driven by generous pension and health benefits rather than by exorbitant wages. Since workers value wages more than they value fringe benefits, this has led to a perverse situation in which transit agencies have high compensation costs yet are struggling to attract workers. The next Administration can remove the largest obstacle to reforming labor costs. Section 10(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 196414 was initially intended to protect bargaining rights for workers in privately owned transit sys- tems that were being absorbed by government-operated agencies. The provision has mutated into a requirement that any transit agency receiving federal funds cannot reduce compensation, an interpretation that far exceeds the original statute. — 636 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Returning to the original intent would allow transit agencies to adjust fringe ben- efits without fearing a federal lawsuit. It is also vital to move away from using the Highway Trust Fund to prop up mass transit. The fund was driven into insolvency (and repeated bailouts) through decades of transfers to transit without any increase in transit usage to show for it. With the federal government facing mounting debt, the best course of action would be to remove federal subsidies for transit spending, allowing states and localities to decide whether mass transit is a good investment for them. FEDERAL RAILROAD POLICY The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is making decisions based on political considerations that are at variance with its safety mission. Instead of basing regulatory decisions on the costs and benefits of the available alterna- tives, FRA is promoting actions that favor the status quo and inhibit the use of technology to improve railroad safety. FRA should be making decisions based on objective evidence of the most cost-effective way to accomplish the agency’s safety goals. FRA’s singular focus on job preservation is contrary to FRA’s mission, and it has a deleterious effect on the morale of FRA’s professional staff, as shown by the annual employee surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. FRA needs to communicate clearly to its career employees a new commitment to making decisions that are consistent with the agency’s safety mission. FRA’s procedures call for decisions on waivers to be made by its Safety Board. Appeals can be taken to the Administrator. However, FRA has deviated from these procedures as the Administrator has injected himself into Safety Board decisions. FRA needs to review its actions with respect to specific proceedings where the agency’s direction cannot be justified. For example: l FRA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on crew size is not based on safety considerations; it is designed to reduce flexibility by making it impossible for railroads to operate with crews of fewer than two in circumstances where there is no operational need for the second crew member. l Although FRA could adopt a modern inspection program that takes advantage of technological ways to inspect track, it is refusing to amend 50-year-old track inspection requirements, leaving customers with higher costs. l FRA is refusing to take final action on a rulemaking proceeding that would modernize brake inspection requirements by taking advantage of the ability

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on Amtrak's enforcement of passenger rail preference rights, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes automated vehicles, regulatory reform, technology neutrality, and spectrum allocation—there is minimal thematic overlap between passenger rail operations and AV-focused transportation innovation."

Key themes:Department of Transportationtransportation policyregulatory reform

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section concern transportation policy within the Department of Transportation, but they address different modes and issues—rail passenger preference versus automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, and fuel economy standards—resulting only in a tangential connection."

Key themes:Department of Transportationtransportation efficiencyinfrastructure

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on Amtrak's enforcement of passenger rail preference rights over freight railroads, while the Project 2025 DOT section addresses brake inspection tracking, dispatcher certification, emergency equipment requirements, research integrity at TTC, and MARAD reorganization—none of which relate to rail passenger-freight priority enforcement."

— 637 — Department of Transportation to track brake inspections on rolling stock electronically instead of by using paper air brake slips, which would enable extending the interval between brake inspections for trains and eliminating restrictions on the ability to place/remove blocks of cars in trains. l FRA will be proposing certification requirements for dispatchers and signal employees despite the failure of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to identify any safety benefit. l FRA is planning to propose emergency escape breathing apparatus requirements for train crews even though FRA staff long ago concluded that the costs of these requirements would far outweigh their very minimal benefits. It is vital that the integrity of FRA’s research program be preserved. In 2022, FRA switched the management of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, from a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to Ensco, Inc. FRA seems determined to direct research to TTC, even when there are better choices with respect to the research in question, in an effort to support TTC financially and justify its decision to change management at TTC. This change in approach threatens the collaborative approach to research between FRA and the railroads that has existed for decades. FRA should make its decisions on where to spend its research dollars solely on the merits of improving the safety and efficiency of the railroad industry. MARITIME POLICY The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was established by President Harry Truman in 1950 and was transferred to DOT in 1981. A principal function is “main- tain[ing] the overall health of the U.S. Merchant Marine,”15 which is important both to national defense and to foreign and domestic commerce. MARAD is also in charge of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and operates ships and funding for the six state maritime academies. MARAD would be better served by being transferred from DOT to the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS). MARAD is the only DOT modal administration that does not regulate the industry that it represents: The maritime industry is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard (ships and personnel) and by the Federal Mari- time Commission (cargo rates and competitive practices). Furthermore, MARAD has responsibilities both in peacetime commerce and operationally in wartime/crisis sealift through its responsibility to manage the National Defense Reserve Fleet and 45-ship Ready Reserve Force for the U.S. Navy. These missions are unique to MARAD within DOT. As a result, MARAD’s missions — 638 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and purpose, and therefore its funding priorities, are not well understood and his- torically have been minimalized in planning and budgeting. MARAD, including its subordinate Service Academy (the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy) should be transferred to the Department of Defense (if the Coast Guard is located there because DHS has been eliminated) or to the Department of Home- land Security. In this way, the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the Maritime sector—MARAD and the United States Coast Guard—would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be real- ized more easily. Serious consideration should be given to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,16 which would require legislation. The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships. For instance, no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG. If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in the absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet. Another DHS agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a frequent user of MARAD Ready Reserve Force shipping during disaster assistance missions. Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process. DHS has responsibility for reviewing and approving Jones Act waivers. This process first requires a market survey of available shipping tonnage that is completed by MARAD. The processing of Jones Act waiver requests would be streamlined if both agencies were in the same department. Finally, DHS as a department is experienced in administering and budgeting for the operation of an existing federal service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, which is similar to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in size. There would be increased efficiencies and better alignment of the missions of these two institutions if they were under one single department that has equity in the industries served by these academies. CONCLUSION Americans need more abundant and affordable transportation. They need more affordable and safer cars as well as physical aspects of transportation such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and rail lines. The Department of Transportation should be evaluating which aspects of transportation are contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the well-being of Americans—and that therefore should continue to be funded. All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Rail Passenger Fairness Act focuses on Amtrak's enforcement of passenger rail preference rights and has no substantive connection to housing policy, HUD reforms, or the specific Project 2025 objectives related to housing markets, DEI/CRT/ESG critiques, or homelessness policy outlined in the provided HUD section."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R.

Expanding the Fast Track Act of 2026

119/hr/8003

Whole Health for Veterans Act

119/hr/6848

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 521 Thorn Street in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, as the Mary Elizabeth Bettie Cole Post Office Building.

119/hr/1461

Back to All Bills