PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9449-9453)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 21, 2004
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part VI - Extends Federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, and transit programs for five months, and authorizes appropriations, through March 31, 2005.
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) apportion funds made available for Federal-aid highway programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to each State according to the ratio of the State's FY 2004 obligation authority to the FY 2004 obligation authority for all States; and (2) ensure that each State is apportioned funds for the Interstate maintenance program, the National Highway System program, the bridge program, the surface transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, the recreational trails program, the Appalachian development highway system program, and the minimum guarantee.
Sets forth provisions: (1) for reducing future apportionments, and for recovering funds not apportioned, under a multi-year law reauthorizing the Federal-aid highway program that is enacted after enactment of this Act; and (2) prohibiting after March 31, 2005, the obligation of any Federal-aid highway program funds until the date of enactment of a multi-year law reauthorizing such program that is enacted after enactment of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes appropriations through May 31, 2005, for specified Federal-aid highway programs, highway safety programs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration program, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration program, and Federal transit programs.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend authorization for the use of the Highway Trust Fund (including the mass transit account) and the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund for obligations under TEA-21.
People & committees
Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV] · D–NV
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9449-9453)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9447-9449)
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: 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.2822 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.2822 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.2822 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.2822 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.