PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · May 21, 2024
Think Differently Transportation Act
This bill requires the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to include information on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in a required annual report to Congress.
Specifically, Amtrak must incorporate into the annual report an action plan for bringing Amtrak rail cars and stations into compliance with the ADA as required by a 2020 settlement agreement entered into between Amtrak and the Department of Justice. (Under the agreement, Amtrak committed to complying with the ADA and making intercity rail stations accessible.)
Amtrak must also include a status report on ADA compliance at Amtrak-served stations (based on a station assessment by Amtrak or the party responsible for ADA compliance). A station assessment means a review of all components of a station, including the building, platform, path to train, and parking areas, as required by the U.S. Access Board. For those Amtrak-served stations where Amtrak is not responsible for ADA compliance, Amtrak must include in the report information on the responsible party.
People & committees
Rep. Molinaro, Marcus J. [R-NY-19] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3385-3386)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3385-3386)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6248.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3385-3386)
Mr. Molinaro moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 424.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 118-510.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 118-510.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Discharged
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.6248 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.6248 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.6248 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.6248 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.