PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3485)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 12, 2005
Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 - Amends Federal highway law to revise Federal highway minimum guarantee requirements.
Requires the Secretary of Transportation, for each of FY 2005 through 2009, to allocate among the States amounts sufficient to ensure that the percentage for each State of the total apportionments for the fiscal year for certain Federal-aid highway programs (including the basic minimum guarantee under this Act) equals or exceeds 95 percent of the ratio that the estimated gas tax payments attributable to highway users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) bears to such payments attributable to highway users in all States (with a specified exception for any State having a population density of less than 50 individuals per square mile).
Provides for: (1) the programmatic distribution of funds above $2.8 billion for certain Federal-aid highway programs; (2) the apportionment of the remainder of funds to the States; and (3) required adjustments where the sum of State percentages exceeds 100 percent.
People & committees
Sen. Voinovich, George V. [R-OH] · R–OH
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 S3485)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3484-3485)
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.762 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.762 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.762 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.762 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.