PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-160.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Apr 14, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Grants the consent and approval of Congress to amendments made by Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia to article III of title I of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact to revise the composition of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission.
States that the Commission shall be composed of three members, one member appointed by the Governor of Virginia from the Department of Motor Vehicles of the Commonwealth of Virginia, one member appointed by the Governor of Maryland from the Maryland Public Service Commission, and one member appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia from a District agency with oversight of matters relating to the Commission.
Declares that such amendment to the article shall not affect any member in office on its effective date.
People & committees
Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-160.
Became Public Law No: 111-160.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2521-2522)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2521-2522)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S.J. Res. 25.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2521-2522)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S132)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S132)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S131-132)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S131-132)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Aug 10, 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.J.Res.25 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.J.Res.25 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.J.Res.25 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.J.Res.25 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.