PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 206.
Congressional Research Service
Version 19 · Reported to House amended, Part II · Nov 6, 2003
Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century - (Sec. 2) Amends Federal transportation law known as the Swift Rail Development Act (or the Swift Act) to make corridor development activities (including the acquisition of locomotives, rolling stock, track, and signal equipment) eligible for Federal assistance. Authorizes appropriations for FY 2004 through 2011.
(Sec. 3) Amends specified Federal law to change from discretionary to mandatory the Secretary's authority to provide direct loans and loan guarantees for rail rehabilitation and improvement projects to State and local governments, interstate compacts, government sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads, and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. Extends the meaning of railroad, for rail rehabilitation and infrastructure financing (RRIF) program purposes, to include modern high-speed ground transportation technology such as magnetic levitation. Increases from $3.5 billion to $35 billion the aggregate unpaid principal amounts of obligations under direct loans and loan guarantees for the RRIF program at any one time. Increases from $1 million to $7 million the set-aside for projects primarily benefiting non-Class I freight railroads. Prohibits the Secretary from establishing any limit on the amount of one loan or loan guarantee issued under the program. Revises requirements for cohorts of loans, allowing inclusion of loans and loan guarantees.
Prohibits the Secretary from requiring a direct loan or loan guarantee applicant to provide collateral, or from having previously sought financial assistance from another source. Requires the Secretary to require such applicants to apply to their projects certain prevailing wage, health and safety, and employee protection labor standards.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to approve or disapprove an application within 90 days after its submission.
Prohibits the Secretary from assessing fees, including user fees, or charges in connection with a direct loan or loan guarantee.
Directs the Secretary to make publicly available and to publish on the Department's website the substantive criteria and standards used in rendering a decision to approve or disapprove an application.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
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. 206.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 108-278, Part II.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 108-278, Part II.
House Committee on Ways and Means Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 7, 2003.
Ordered to be Reported Without Recommendation (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
House Committee on Ways and Means Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 31, 2003.
House Committee on Ways and Means Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 3, 2003.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 108-278, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 108-278, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.2571 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.2571 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.2571 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.2571 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.