PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 2011
Taking Responsible Action for Community Safety Act - Revises requirements with respect to the consolidation, merger, or acquisition of control (transaction) involving rail carriers to require public hearings in the affected communities if public hearings on a proposed transaction are held.
Requires the Surface Transportation Board, in a proceeding with respect to a transaction that involves at least one Class I railroad (under current law, merger or control of at least two Class I railroads), to consider the effect on the public interest, including the safety and environmental effect of the proposed merger on local communities, intercity rail passenger transportation, commuter rail passenger transportation, and the public interest.
Prohibits the Board from approving mergers if their adverse impacts on safety and on affected communities outweigh their transportation benefits. Authorizes the Board to impose conditions to mitigate the effect of mergers on local communities.
People & committees
Rep. Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] · R–IL
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.30 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.30 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.30 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.30 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.