PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · May 19, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Recognizes that increased and safe bicycle use for transportation and recreation is in the national interest of the United States.
Supports policies that increase bicycle use.
Encourages the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide leadership and coordination by reestablishing the federal bicycle task force to include representatives from all relevant federal agencies.
People & committees
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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 voice vote. (text: CR 5/19/2008 H4102-4103)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 5/19/2008 H4102-4103)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4432-4433)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Petri objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 305.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4102-4104)
Ms. Hirono moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 219.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-653.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-653.
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E270)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.Con.Res.305 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 H.Con.Res.305 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 H.Con.Res.305 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 H.Con.Res.305 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.