PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 11, 2015
This bill permits the federal share requirements applicable to the transportation alternatives program (TAP) to be met based on: (1) an individual project or activity, or (2) a program of projects or activities.
In the allocation of funds for transportation alternatives, 66.67% (increased from 50%) of reserved funds per fiscal year shall be obligated to any eligible entity in proportion to its relative shares of the state population in: (1) urbanized areas with a population of over 200,000, (2) non-urban areas with a population greater than 5,000, and (3) other areas of the state.
Certain not-for-profit entities and metropolitan planning organizations are now eligible to be TAP project sponsors.
A state's authority to opt out of the recreational trails program is repealed.
Each state or metropolitan planning organization responsible for carrying out TAP requirements must report annually to the Department of Transportation on the the number of TAP project applications received and the number of projects selected for funding.
People & committees
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] · R–MS
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.
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.705 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.705 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.705 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.705 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.