PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 29, 1996
Amends Federal law with respect to Statewide planning of an intermodal State transportation system to require State coordination and cooperation with planning activities by local elected officials having jurisdiction over transportation in nonmetropolitan areas (areas over which no metropolitan planning organization is designated). Provides for arbitration to resolve disputes on a transportation improvement program or project by the State, a metropolitan planning organization, or local elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation in nonmetropolitan areas. Grants investigatory powers to the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any allegation that one of these entities or individuals has violated any Federal metropolitan planning requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Stupak, Bart [D-MI-1] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.R.3227 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.R.3227 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.R.3227 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.R.3227 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.