PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 3, 2007
Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007 - Sets forth Surface Transportation Board directives calling for effective competition among rail carriers and reliable rail transportation service for rail customers.
Requires a rail carrier, upon shipper request, to establish rates for transportation and provide requested service between any two points on the carrier's system.
Prohibits the Board from issuing a certificate authorizing construction and operation of railroad lines, short line purchases by Class II and Class III rail carriers, or consolidation, merger, and acquisition of control of rail carriers, or exempt from such certificate requirements any person, transaction, or service with respect to such activity, if the activity involves a transfer of interest in a line of railroad, from a Class I rail carrier to a Class II or III rail carrier, and the activity would: (1) restrict the ability of the Class II or Class III rail carrier to interchange traffic with other rail carriers; (2) restrict competition of rail carriers in the region affected by the activity in a manner that would violate U.S. antitrust laws; or (3) require higher per car interchange rates for Class II or Class III rail carriers to interchange traffic with other rail carriers. Prescribes procedures for Board review of any activity alleged to have resulted in a restriction of competition.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes mandatory (currently, discretionary) entry by rail carriers into reciprocal switching agreements where the Board finds it is practicable and in the public interest, or where such agreements are necessary to provide competitive rail service.
Requires the Board to designate any state or substantial part of a state as an area of inadequate rail competition after making certain findings.
Requires the Board to post rail service complaints on its website.
Sets forth time limits for the Board to act on complaints filed alleging unlawfulness of a new or revised rail rate, rule, or practice.
Establishes the Office of Rail Customer Advocacy.
Grants rail customers access to a Board process for determining rail rate reasonableness in railroad market dominance cases.
Requires the Board to submit certain rail rate, service, and other disputes to arbitration.
Authorizes the Board to investigate rail carrier violations on its own initiative (under current law, the Board is authorized to investigate only on complaint). Requires the Board (currently, discretionary) to initiate an investigation upon receiving a complaint alleging rail carrier violations.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
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: Aug 14, 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.2125 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.2125 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.2125 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.2125 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.