PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S10689-10694)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 17, 2002
Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Highway Funding Act (MEGA Fund Act) - Authorizes appropriations out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) (other than the Mass Transit Account) for various programs, including the Interstate Maintenance Program, the National Highway System, the Bridge Program, the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Appalachian Development Highway System Program, the Recreational Trails Program, and the High Priority Projects Program. Requires deductions from program apportionments for a future strategic highway research program.Expresses the sense of the Senate that the provisions of budget legislation pertaining to the highway program should be amended to: (1) improve predictability and stability in the levels of highway program obligation authority; (2) facilitate the expenditure of funds in the HTF (other than the Mass Transit Account); and (3) eliminate the possibility of reductions in the levels of highway program obligation authority being imposed automatically so that any reductions are solely the prerogative of Congress.Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Act reauthorizing highway, highway safety, and transit programs for fiscal years beginning with FY 2004 should include appropriate budgetary protections for highway safety and transit programs.Establishes a program to assist States that face certain economic and demographic barriers in meeting transportation needs.Amends the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA Act) to provide certain minimum allocations to border States.Establishes the cooperative Federal lands transportation program for projects on highways that: (1) are State owned or maintained; and (2) cross, are adjacent to, or lead to federally owned land or Indian reservations.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
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 S10689-10694)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10688-10689)
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.3132 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.3132 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.3132 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.3132 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.