PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 3, 2007
Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a project for the repair and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007.
Makes the federal share of the project cost 100%.
Authorizes appropriations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Waives, for such project, the $100 million per state single-failure (or, single-disaster) highway-related total obligation limitation.
Amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to authorize the Secretary to: (1) use such single-failure (or, single-disaster) highway-related funds for the repair and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007; and (2) use up to $5 million of such funds to reimburse the Minnesota state department of transportation for actual and necessary costs of maintenance and operation (less the amount of fares earned) for providing additional public transportation services and traveler information services as a substitute for highway traffic service following the collapse of the Interstate I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on August 1, 2007, until highway traffic service is restored on such bridge. Makes the federal share of the project cost 100%.
People & committees
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] · D–MN
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 Environment and Public Works.
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.2009 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.2009 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.2009 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.2009 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.