PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3899)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 23, 2014
Emergency Interstate Bridge Safety Fund Act - Repeals the Davis-Bacon Act (which requires that the locally prevailing wage rate be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics working under federally-financed or federally-assisted contracts for construction, alteration, and repair of public buildings or public works).
Establishes in the Treasury an Emergency Interstate Bridge Safety Fund.
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the Fund regularly amounts equal to the savings achieved through this repeal from the capital budgets of each affected federal agency.
Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to compile a prioritized list of emergency interstate bridge projects on the federal-aid highway system meeting specified criteria (e.g., the bridge is deemed functionally obsolete). Authorizes the obligation of Fund amounts for such projects.
People & committees
Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY] · R–KY
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 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3899)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3899)
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 12, 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.2512 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.2512 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.2512 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.2512 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.