PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2345)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 12, 2003
Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish and carry out a program to make allocations to States for projects to expand eligible two-lane highways in rural areas to four-lane highways. Authorizes the Secretary to make allocations only for projects that are on the National Highway System (NHS) or a high priority corridor identified under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.Directs the Secretary to give priority to projects: (1) to improve highway safety on the most dangerous rural two-lane highways on the NHS; (2) carried out on rural highways with respect to which the annual volume of commercial vehicle traffic has increased since the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act or is expected to increase after this Act's enactment; (3) carried out on rural highways with high levels of commercial truck traffic; and (4) on highway corridors that will help stimulate regional economic growth and development in rural areas.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
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 S2345)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2343-345)
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.365 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.365 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.365 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.365 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.