PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 2, 2010
TIFIA Expansion Act of 2010 - Revises Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program requirements to make eligible for TIFIA funding any projects that: (1) are for the design, acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of one or more transportation projects that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or have a positive impact on traffic congestion; and (2) receive not more than 30% of their funding for capital costs from federal public transportation grant funds.
Defines "master credit agreement" as one entered into between the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) and an obligor for such projects that: (1) makes contingent commitments of one or more secured loans or other federal credit instruments at future dates; (2) establishes the amounts and general terms and conditions of such loans or other instruments as well as identifies dedicated revenue sources that will secure their repayment; and (3) provides for the obligation of funds for the loans or other instruments after certain federal requirements have been met.
Requires such projects to meet certain planning and programming requirements (as under current law) at the time that loan proceeds are disbursed or other credit assistance is provided pursuant to the master credit agreement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes projects with eligible costs reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $1 billion (mega transportation projects) eligible for federal transportation infrastructure funding.
Revises terms of secured loans and lines of credit used to finance certain transportation infrastructure projects to increase the maximum loan amount for such projects from the lesser of 33% to the lesser of 49% of the reasonably anticipated eligible project costs or (as under current law), if the loan does not receive an investment grade rating, the amount of the senior project obligations.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2011-FY2015 for such projects.
People & committees
Rep. Richardson, Laura [D-CA-37] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.6483 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.6483 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.6483 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.6483 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.