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 16, 2014
Responsible Rail and Deterring Deficiency Act - Declares that the Congress determines that a certain California high-speed train project would not be adequately served by continuation of federal assistance.
Directs the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), based upon that determination, to exercise its right under the grant agreement (entered into between the FRA and the California High Speed Rail Authority numbered FR-HSR-0009-10-01-05 on December 5, 2012) to suspend any further financial assistance for the project until: (1) the California High Speed Rail Authority certifies to the FRA that it has access to state funds, or other non-federal funds, in the amounts specified in the grant agreement and such funds are available to meet the Authority's financial obligations under that agreement; or (2) September 30, 2017.
Prohibits the FRA from amending, supplementing, or otherwise changing the terms of the grant agreement until the requirements for suspension of federal assistance have been met.
People & committees
Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-10] · R–CA
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 12, 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.3893 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.3893 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.3893 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.3893 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.