PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S10857)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 8, 2004
Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal-Aid Highways Program to direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a traffic incident management program to assist States and localities in: (1) regional traffic incident management program planning; and (2) carrying out projects to mitigate the effects of traffic delays resulting from accidents, breakdowns, and other non-recurring incidents on highways.
Prohibits funds apportioned under this Act from being obligated for an urbanized area with a population greater than 300,000 until such time as a regional traffic incident management plan is developed for the urbanized area.
Requires an urbanized area that receives funds under this Act to engage in certain regional collaboration and coordination activities to develop a prescribed regional traffic incident management plan.
Prescribes an apportionment formula for funds distribution among the States to implement this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Graham, Bob [D-FL] · D–FL
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 S10857)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10856-10857)
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.2960 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.2960 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.2960 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.2960 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.