PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 30, 2011
Requires the parties to specified disputes between railway carriers (represented by the National Carriers' Conference Committee of the National Railway Labor Conference) and certain of their railroad employees (represented by specified labor organizations) to take all necessary steps to restore or preserve dispute conditions as they existed before 12:01 a.m. on December 6, 2011, such status to remain in effect through December 31, 2014 (the cooling off period).
Makes the report and recommendations of the Presidential Emergency Board No. 243 issued on November 5, 2011, however, binding on the parties, with the same effect as though arrived at by agreement of the parties under the Railway Labor Act, for the period from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014 (except with respect to the optional election by a labor organization that is a party to this dispute of the specified interim January 1, 2015, employee wage increase).
People & committees
Rep. Mica, John L. [R-FL-7] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.91 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.91 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.91 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.91 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.