PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 8, 2009
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Improvements Act of 2009 - Revises the job access and reverse commute (JARC) program to authorize a state to accept a single combined application for a project funded from at least two of the following programs that provide individuals with transportation to and from a job: (1) the JARC program; (2) the elderly and disabled specialized transit program; (3) the new freedom program (for disabled workers); and (4) any other program the Secretary deems appropriate.
Makes eligible for JARC formula grant funding the subsidizing of costs associated with the transportation of low income high school students and young adults to career or technical education, job training, or apprenticeship programs.
Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, at state request, to waive or streamline JARC program reporting and certification requirements, provided program goals are met.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to study the feasibility of eliminating, revising, or reducing frequency of collection for any reporting or certification requirements relating to the JARC formula grant program, particularly examining the burden on and needs of nonprofit organizations that receive funding and are unaccustomed to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations.
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a grant pilot program to: (1) improve education and employment related transportation activities for eligible teens and young adults; (2) evaluate streamlined reporting and certification requirements; and (3) support more comprehensive projects integrated with other federal, state, and local transportation and human service programs, while ensuring the paperwork burden is minimized.
Requires the Secretary to continue and expand JARC technical assistance activities so that the Department of Transportation supports various specified efforts, including those that act as an information clearinghouse and information network.
People & committees
Sen. Feingold, Russell D. [D-WI] · D–WI
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 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S220-221)
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: 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 S.176 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.176 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.176 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.176 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.