PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 115-33.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · May 12, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the Senate passed version is repeated here.)
(Sec. 1) This bill nullifies the Federal Highway Administration's and the Federal Transit Administration's rule published on December 20, 2016, that revises transportation planning regulations with regard to the alignment of planning regulations with statutory provisions relating to the establishment of metropolitan planning area boundaries and the designation of metropolitan planning organizations.
People & committees
Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-33.
Became Public Law No: 115-33.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 3 (Roll no. 231).
House roll call 231 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 3 (Roll no. 231).
House roll call 231 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2919-2920)
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 S. 496.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2823-2825)
Mr. Lewis (MN) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1695; text: CR S1695)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S1695; text: CR S1695)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.496 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.496 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.496 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.496 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.