PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 146.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 29, 1993
High-Speed Rail Development Act of 1993 - Amends the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 to authorize the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to designate as a high-speed rail corridor (HSR Corridor): (1) any corridor that serves two or more major metropolitan areas where high-speed rail offers the potential for cost-effective intercity public transportation; (2) upon application of a State Governor, any intercity rail corridor designated as a high-speed rail corridor under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and (3) any intercity rail corridor (other than the mainline of the corridor improved under title VII of such Act) that includes a significant segment where rail passenger service operates at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour. Requires designated public agencies seeking financial assistance for development of an HSR Corridor to submit to the Secretary a corridor master plan identifying a coordinated program of improvements to permit the establishment of high-speed rail service in the corridor. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into financial assistance agreements with public agencies to fund eligible improvements to the infrastructure of an HSR Corridor for the purpose of developing high-speed rail service. Authorizes the Secretary to undertake research and development of steel-wheel-on-rail technologies for commercial application in high-speed rail service. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Dingell, John D. [D-MI-16] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 146.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 103-258.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 103-258.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 16.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials Prior to Referral.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 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.R.1919 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.R.1919 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.R.1919 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.R.1919 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.