Freight RAILCAR Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
ID: L000585
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť 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
đź“š 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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose its true intentions.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Freight RAILCAR Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to promote the replacement or modernization of inefficient, outdated freight railcars. But don't be fooled – its primary objective is to provide a tax credit windfall for the railroad industry and its cronies.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a new section (45BB) to the Internal Revenue Code, which offers a 10% tax credit for "freight railcar fleet modernization expenses." This includes costs associated with replacing or modernizing qualified freight railcars. The credit is limited to $1 million per taxpayer and applies only to railcars that meet specific criteria, such as being built after the bill's enactment date or meeting certain performance standards.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The railroad industry, of course, will be the primary beneficiary of this tax credit bonanza. Other stakeholders include:
* Railcar manufacturers and suppliers * Railroad operators and owners * Lobbyists and special interest groups representing these industries
**Potential Impact & Implications:**
1. **Taxpayer-funded subsidies:** This bill is essentially a handout to the railroad industry, using taxpayer dollars to fund their modernization efforts. 2. **Increased costs for consumers:** The tax credit will likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods transported by rail. 3. **Environmental concerns:** While the bill claims to promote more efficient and environmentally friendly railcars, it's unclear whether these benefits will outweigh the increased costs and potential environmental impacts of manufacturing new railcars. 4. **Lobbying and cronyism:** This bill reeks of special interest influence, with numerous lawmakers from both parties signing on as co-sponsors. It's a classic example of how money and power corrupt the legislative process.
In conclusion, the Freight RAILCAR Act of 2025 is a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of railroad industry executives and their lobbyists while masquerading as a pro-environmental initiative. Don't be fooled by the bill's title or its proponents' rhetoric – this is just another example of Washington's favorite pastime: corporate welfare.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 23 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $77,100
Top Donors - Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 619 — 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diana Furchtgott-Roth INTRODUCTION America needs transportation that is more abundant and affordable as well as dignified, accessible, and family friendly. Transportation plays a vital role in the prosperity and flourishing of the United States. Americans use trucks, tankers, and trains to keep our supply chains running and cars, transit, and planes to go where we want to go. Two hundred and forty years ago, Adam Smith recognized that connections were a bedrock of society because they stimulate specialization, innovation, and capital investment. In the following decades, America’s growth was made possible by transportation—first ports and transatlantic shipping, then roads, canals, and eventually railroads pushing westward to create the nation we call home. Access to transportation is part of what made our country great. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with a requested fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $142 billion,1 was originally intended simply to provide a policy framework for transportation safety, rulemaking, and regulation. However, it has evolved to believe that its role is “to deliver the world’s leading transportation system”2—that is, to select individual projects and allocate taxpayer funds in the actual planning, developing, and building of transportation assets. Such a role is held more appropriately by transportation asset owners: primarily states, munic- ipalities, and the private sector. In addition to providing a safety and regulatory framework through its 11 sub- components, known as modes, the department has become a de facto grantmaking and lending organization. DOT provides approximately $50 billion in discretionary
Introduction
— 619 — 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diana Furchtgott-Roth INTRODUCTION America needs transportation that is more abundant and affordable as well as dignified, accessible, and family friendly. Transportation plays a vital role in the prosperity and flourishing of the United States. Americans use trucks, tankers, and trains to keep our supply chains running and cars, transit, and planes to go where we want to go. Two hundred and forty years ago, Adam Smith recognized that connections were a bedrock of society because they stimulate specialization, innovation, and capital investment. In the following decades, America’s growth was made possible by transportation—first ports and transatlantic shipping, then roads, canals, and eventually railroads pushing westward to create the nation we call home. Access to transportation is part of what made our country great. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with a requested fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $142 billion,1 was originally intended simply to provide a policy framework for transportation safety, rulemaking, and regulation. However, it has evolved to believe that its role is “to deliver the world’s leading transportation system”2—that is, to select individual projects and allocate taxpayer funds in the actual planning, developing, and building of transportation assets. Such a role is held more appropriately by transportation asset owners: primarily states, munic- ipalities, and the private sector. In addition to providing a safety and regulatory framework through its 11 sub- components, known as modes, the department has become a de facto grantmaking and lending organization. DOT provides approximately $50 billion in discretionary — 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA);
Introduction
— 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
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.