Rail Passenger Fairness Act

Bill Number: H.R. 5570
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Transportation and Public Works
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-12-01: Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Last Updated: 2025-12-16T18:53:16Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Rail Passenger Fairness Act (H.R. 5570) aims to strengthen Amtrak's ability to ensure timely passenger rail service by granting it direct authority to enforce its statutory right to priority over freight trains on shared rail lines, junctions, or crossings. This addresses ongoing issues where freight railroads (host railroads) often delay passenger trains, harming service reliability and increasing costs.

Key Provisions

Findings Section: Outlines Amtrak's history since 1971, its statutory preference rights under 49 U.S.C. § 24308(c) (established in 1973), and evidence of non-compliance by host railroads, including data on delays (e.g., 70% of delays in 2019 caused by host railroads, totaling over 3 million minutes) and economic impacts (e.g., potential $41.9 million in annual savings from improved on-time performance).
Enforcement Authorization: Amends 49 U.S.C. § 24308(c) to explicitly allow Amtrak to file civil lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking equitable relief (such as court orders to enforce priority) or other remedies to uphold its preference rights, overriding certain limitations in existing law.
Conforming Amendment: Updates 49 U.S.C. § 24103 to clarify that Amtrak's new lawsuit rights under § 24308(c) are an exception to rules limiting enforcement actions.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Prior to this bill, only the U.S. Attorney General could initiate civil enforcement actions against host railroads for violating Amtrak's preference rights, and such actions have been rare (only one in Amtrak's history, in 1979).
The bill removes this exclusivity, empowering Amtrak as a corporation to sue directly in federal court, bypassing reliance on the Department of Justice.
It responds to a 2014 D.C. Circuit Court ruling that invalidated similar enforcement provisions from the 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act as unconstitutional, restoring and clarifying Amtrak's enforcement options.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Enhances Amtrak's operational efficiency, potentially reducing taxpayer-funded costs (e.g., $12.1 million savings from a 5% on-time improvement) and allowing the Surface Transportation Board (which currently handles some disputes) to focus on other regulatory roles.
On Citizens: Improves reliability for the 6.5 million annual Amtrak passengers on state-supported and long-distance routes, reducing delays caused by freight interference and making rail travel more competitive with other modes like driving or flying.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though better U.S. passenger rail performance could indirectly support cross-border rail initiatives (e.g., with Canada or Mexico) by demonstrating improved infrastructure management.
Overall, it could lead to higher on-time rates (historically peaking at 85% after prior enforcement measures), fewer equipment replacements, and broader economic benefits from efficient passenger transport.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Amtrak: Gains a stronger tool to meet its congressional mandate for on-time, competitive service, potentially improving performance from current lows (e.g., 50% on long-distance routes).
Host Railroads (Freight Carriers): Faces increased legal accountability and pressure to prioritize passenger trains, which may require operational adjustments but could reduce past delay-related liabilities.
Passengers and Taxpayers: Benefits from more reliable service and cost savings, as delays have historically wasted public funds.
U.S. Department of Justice and Surface Transportation Board: Sees a shift in enforcement roles, with the Attorney General retaining authority but Amtrak taking a more active lead.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Bolsters enforcement of a 50-year-old statutory right without altering the core preference rule, but specifies venue in the D.C. federal court for consistency. It avoids past constitutional issues by framing Amtrak's authority as a direct statutory grant rather than regulatory overreach.
Constitutional: Addresses prior court concerns about separation of powers (e.g., the 2014 ruling on Amtrak's quasi-governmental status) by clearly positioning Amtrak's lawsuits as private enforcement actions, potentially reducing challenges to its corporate independence.
Political: Signals bipartisan support for passenger rail investment (introduced by Democrats but building on prior laws), emphasizing efficiency and accountability amid debates on infrastructure funding. It could influence future rail policy by demonstrating Congress's intent to prioritize public passenger service over freight dominance on shared tracks.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

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

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]

Recent Actions

2025-12-01: Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
2025-09-26: Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-09-26: Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-09-26: Introduced in House
2025-09-26: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Rail Passenger Fairness Act — issued 2025-09-26 — PDF (7 pages)