PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 23, 1996
Railroad Crossing Safety Act of 1996 - Increases to 100 percent the Federal share of rail-highway crossing closure costs. Authorizes a State to make incentive payments from Federal funds appropriated for railway-highway crossings to local governments upon the permanent closure by such governments of public at-grade railway highway crossings. Bars a State from making such a payment unless the railroad owning the tracks on which the crossing is located makes an incentive payment to the government with respect to the closure. Limits the amount of the incentive payment to a local government to the lesser of the amount of the payment to the government by the railroad concerned or $7,500. Requires such government to use the incentive payment from the State for transportation safety improvements. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe guidelines to assist the States in analyzing the costs and benefits to the public of new railway-highway grade crossings.
People & committees
Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1296)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.1572 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 S.1572 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 S.1572 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 S.1572 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.