HR-4790-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Sponsored by Christopher Deluzio (D-PA)
What it does
The All Aboard Act of 2025 would create a formula grant program distributing at least $5 million annually per state for rail planning, operations, and infrastructure over five years. It would establish a "Green Railroads Fund" offering competitive grants for rail electrification projects, set emissions goals targeting zero-emission locomotives by 2047, and authorize additional funding for Amtrak, passenger rail expansion, railroad crossing safety, and air quality improvements near railyards. The bill would also create two federally supported workforce training centers — one for passenger rail and one for freight rail — and impose labor requirements including prevailing wages, project labor agreements, and minimum two-person freight train crews on funded projects.
Who benefits
Amtrak passengers and future intercity rail riders who would gain expanded routes and improved service. Residents of environmental justice communities near railyards who may see reduced diesel air pollution. Rail workers who would gain prevailing wage protections, apprenticeship programs, and workforce training. Labor unions representing rail and construction workers who would benefit from project labor agreement requirements and expanded organizing opportunities. States and localities seeking federal funding for rail infrastructure. Renewable energy developers who may benefit from co-located transmission and rail electrification corridors. Electric locomotive and rail equipment manufacturers who would gain a large new federal market. Tribal and Indigenous communities explicitly prioritized for hiring and environmental benefits. Communities divided by rail infrastructure that could receive reconnection improvements. Road users who would benefit from improved railroad crossing safety devices.
Who is hurt
Diesel locomotive manufacturers and suppliers whose products would face a federally incentivized phase-out by 2047. Class I freight railroads that would face new two-person crew mandates and labor requirements on funded projects, potentially increasing operating costs. Non-union contractors who may be excluded from funded projects due to project labor agreement requirements. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of up to approximately $205.5 billion in authorized appropriations over five years. Short-haul airline carriers and airports that could lose passengers if rail becomes more competitive on targeted city-pair routes. Trucking companies that could face increased competition if freight rail capacity expands significantly. Communities along new rail corridors that may experience construction disruption, noise, or land acquisition impacts. Small and rural states that receive the minimum $5 million formula grant may find it insufficient for meaningful rail development.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. rail network is chronically underfunded compared to peer nations, and that expanding electrified passenger rail would reduce transportation emissions, ease highway congestion, and improve air quality in communities that bear disproportionate pollution burdens from diesel railyards. They contend the bill's workforce provisions — prevailing wages, apprenticeships, and transition plans — ensure that the economic benefits of the energy transition flow to workers rather than displacing them, and that the two-person crew requirement directly addresses documented safety risks, including the 2023 East Palestine, Ohio derailment, which renewed scrutiny of rail safety staffing practices.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's approximately $205.5 billion in authorized spending over five years represents an extraordinary fiscal commitment with uncertain ridership returns, particularly for long-distance routes where passenger rail has historically struggled to compete with air travel on cost and convenience. They contend that mandating project labor agreements and two-person freight crews imposes rigid labor structures that may increase project costs, deter private rail investment, and conflict with ongoing automation and efficiency improvements — and that the 2047 zero-emission locomotive deadline may be technologically premature given the current limited availability of commercially viable zero-emission freight locomotives at scale.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to fund and regulate rail infrastructure rests firmly on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as railroads are quintessential instruments of interstate commerce under longstanding precedent including Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The bill's delegation of broad grant-making discretion to the Secretary of Transportation and the EPA could face scrutiny under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the post-Chevron independent judicial review standard of Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), particularly for agency rules implementing the emissions timelines and labor mandates.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the EPA — gains significant new grant-making and rulemaking authority; Congress retains oversight through the authorization (not appropriation) structure, annual appropriations decisions, and required state reporting, while courts may review agency implementation under the major questions doctrine and post-Chevron independent judgment standards.
Historical precedent
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) authorized approximately $66 billion for rail, including Amtrak funding and the Federal-State Intercity Partnership program that this bill would significantly expand, providing the closest direct legislative analogue.