PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 1995
Amtrak Route Closure and Realignment Act of 1995 - Establishes as an independent commission the Total Realignment of Amtrak Commission. (Sec. 3) Directs the Commission to: (1) identify Amtrak passenger rail routes which are candidates for closure or realignment based on system-wide economic performance rankings and other specified principles and factors; (2) examine ridership forecasts and other assumptions supporting continued service on the Northeast Corridor, particularly with respect to the continuation of the electrification of the Northeast Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut, and Boston, Massachusetts; and (3) examine optional uses for abandoned rail lines. Requires the Commission to transmit to the Congress and the President a report on its activities, including recommendations for the closure and realignment of routes in Amtrak's passenger rail system. (Sec. 4) Sets forth procedures for congressional consideration of Commission recommendations. (Sec. 5) Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Wolf, Frank R. [R-VA-10] · R–VA
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 Rules and Organization of the House.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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 Rules, 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 Rules, 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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E277-278)
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 21, 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.841 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.841 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.841 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.841 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.