PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 13, 2016
Mandate Oil Spill Investigations and Emergency Rules (MOSIER) Act of 2016
This bill reauthorizes through FY2020 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A specified amount is set-aside for costs to carry out railroad accident investigations and investigations of significant railroad incidents.
The bill requires the NTSB to investigate derailments involving a significant release of hazardous materials into the environment within close proximity to communities, personal property, or critical landscapes.
The bill expands the authority of the Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue emergency orders for unsafe occurrences causing, or potentially causing, an emergency or reoccurring situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the environment.
DOT shall establish and enforce a national standard for the maximum volatility of crude oil to be permitted to be shipped by rail based on the safest practicable standard.
People & committees
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] · D–OR
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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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.3187 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.3187 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.3187 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.3187 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.