PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 6, 1997
Highway Rail Grade Crossing Safety Formula Enhancement Act of 1997 - Amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to direct the Secretary of Transportation, for FY 1998, to set aside five percent of the funds authorized for the surface transportation program to be apportioned among the States for railway-highway crossings based on a formula which takes into account the number of accidents and fatalities at public railway-highway crossings over a three-year period, the number of such crossings, and the number of such crossings with passive warning devices in each State relative to all States. Provides for exclusive availability of specified apportioned funds for railway-highway crossings and for hazard elimination programs in FY 1998.
People & committees
Sen. Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1104-1105)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.284 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.284 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.284 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.284 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.