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 · May 9, 1995
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 - Designates the most recent National Highway System (as of the date of this Act's enactment) as submitted by the Secretary of Transportation to be the National Highway System (NHS). Requires each State making a request for a change in the NHS to establish that each change has been identified by the State, in cooperation with local officials, pursuant to applicable transportation planning activities for metropolitan areas and statewide planning processes. Financing Improvement Act of 1995 - Prohibits the Secretary from approving an application for advance construction unless the project is included in the State's transportation improvement program. Revises Federal highway provisions to authorize a State to loan an amount equal to all or part of the Federal share of a toll project or a non-toll project that has a revenue source specifically dedicated to such project to a public entity constructing or proposing to construct a toll facility or non-toll facility with a dedicated revenue source. Modifies provisions regarding State highway departments to repeal a requirement that the organization of such a department include a secondary road unit. Specifies that such provisions do not restrict the eligibility of costs that may be claimed by a State nor limit a State's authority to engage the services of private professional firms. Permits donations of private funds, assets, and publicly owned rights-of-way for Federal-aid projects. Specifies that the State matching share for a project with respect to which Federal assistance is provided may be credited with the amount of the donated funds or the fair market value of publicly owned right-of-way incorporated into the project by the State highway agency. State Infrastructure Bank Financing Improvement Act of 1995 - Authorizes a State to establish a State Infrastructure Bank for making loans and providing other assistance to public or private entities constructing transportation projects, programs, or activities that are eligible to receive assistance under specified Federal provisions. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) deposits; (2) consultation with metropolitan planning organizations; (3) applicability of cash management requirements; (4) matching requirements; (5) investment income; (6) treatment of Federal deposits; (7) loans and other assistance; (8) administrative costs; (9) annual reports; and (10) conditions of receiving continuing Federal deposits.
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.
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.775 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.775 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.775 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.775 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.