PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See S.1519.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 1, 1997
Amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to authorize appropriations for October 1, 1997, through March 31, 1998, for specified Federal-aid highways, highway safety construction, highway safety, Federal transit, motor carrier safety, and transportation research programs. Mandates apportionment of such funds among the States according to FY 1997 ISTEA final funding percentages, and distribution to each State according to existing ISTEA categories in the same proportion as FY 1997. Specifies general operating expenses and certain deductions for: (1) territorial highways; (2) the National Recreation Trails program; (3) the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; (4) off-system bridges; (5) Federal lands highways; (6) the highway use tax evasion investigation and enforcement program; (7) the scenic byways program; and (8) ferry boat construction. Limits FY 1998 obligations to 50 percent on October 1, 1997, and 50 percent on July 1, 1998. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine the apportionment for which each urbanized area for fixed guideway modernization on a pro rata basis to reflect the partial FY 1998 funding made available by this Act. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend for one year the availability of funds for certain expenditures, and transfers, from the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account.
People & committees
Rep. Shuster, Bud [R-PA-9] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See S.1519.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 189.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H8285-8290)
Mr. Shuster asked unanimous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House and consider.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 151.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 105-270.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 105-270.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.2516 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.2516 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.2516 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.2516 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.