Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill repeals Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, removing the statutory requirement that the Secretary of Transportation issue regulations related to "advanced impaired driving technology." In plain terms, the federal mandate to promulgate specific rules about such vehicle technologies would be eliminated. The bill does not itself prescribe alternative federal rules or mandate state action.
Safety vs liberty: left emphasizes crash reduction; right emphasizes avoiding mandates.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive change that clearly and precisely effects repeal of a specific statutory provision but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, transitional, or oversight detail.
This bill repeals Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, removing the statutory requirement that the Secretary of Transportation issue regulations related to "advanced impaired driving technology." In plain terms, the federal mandate to promulgate specific rules about such vehicle technologies would be eliminated.
The bill does not itself prescribe alternative federal rules or mandate state action.
Very narrow and low-cost, so House passage is plausible; Senate procedural barriers and stakeholder safety opposition lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive change that clearly and precisely effects repeal of a specific statutory provision but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, transitional, or oversight detail.
Safety vs liberty: left emphasizes crash reduction; right emphasizes avoiding mandates.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Safety vs liberty: left emphasizes crash reduction; right emphasizes avoiding mandates.
Likely views the repeal as removing an important federal safety mandate that could reduce impaired-driving harms.
Concerned the change delays or prevents nationwide deployment of technology that could save lives, especially without strong state action.
Mixed view: appreciates avoiding a one-size-fits-all federal mandate but worries about losing coordinated safety standards.
Would weigh regulatory costs and public-safety evidence before taking a firm position.
Likely supports the repeal as protection against federal overreach and unwanted "kill switch" mandates in private vehicles.
Emphasizes individual liberty, industry autonomy, and state control over vehicle rules.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow and low-cost, so House passage is plausible; Senate procedural barriers and stakeholder safety opposition lower overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Safety vs liberty: left emphasizes crash reduction; right emphasizes avoiding mandates.
Very narrow and low-cost, so House passage is plausible; Senate procedural barriers and stakeholder safety opposition lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive change that clearly and precisely effects repeal of a specific statutory provision but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, transitio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.