Expressing the sense of Congress in support of Buckle Up America Week.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 7, 2003
Declares the sense of Congress that: (1) all people throughout the Nation should talk to family and friends about the importance of wearing safety belts; (2) law enforcement agencies should be commended for their commitment to enforce safety belt usage laws; (3) national and community agencies and organizations should be recognized for promoting awareness about Buckle Up America Week (May 19 through 26); (4) all legislative leaders should participate in Buckle Up America events; and (5) drivers and passengers should insist their fellow automobile passengers wear their safety belts while driving and that all children in the car are buckled up in the appropriate restraint for their age, height, and weight.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 377 - 2 (Roll no. 192). (text of measure as passed: CR H4213)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 377 - 2 (Roll no. 192).(text of measure as passed: CR H4213)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4217-4218)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 166.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4213-4214)
Mr. Petri moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Con.Res.166 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Con.Res.166 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Con.Res.166 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Con.Res.166 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.