PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 13, 2001
Rail Merger Reform and Customer Protection Act - Amends Federal transportation law to condition the Surface Transportation Board's approval of any rail carrier consolidation, merger, or acquisition of control upon a finding that the transaction: (1) will not reduce competitive rail routes available to current railroad customers; (2) will provide additional rail to rail competition and competitive options for railroad customers; (3) will improve service to customers; and (4) is in conformity with the antitrust laws.Declares that rail carriers and rail transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board shall also be subject to the antitrust laws.Repeals the exemption of rate agreements from the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and specified parts of the Wilson Tariff Act (thus subjecting such agreements to Federal antitrust laws). Repeals the mandate that the Federal Trade Commission report to the Board periodically on possible anticompetitive features of approved rate agreements, or agreements submitted for approval, and any organization operating under such agreements.Prohibits a person proceeding against a rail carrier in a complaint before the Board from proceeding against the same rail carrier pursuant to other Federal or State law, and vice versa.Amends the Clayton Act to conform with this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Pomeroy, Earl [D-ND-At Large] · D–ND
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.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 the Judiciary, 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 the Judiciary, 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 E350)
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 19, 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.999 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.999 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.999 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.999 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.