PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 23, 2013
Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2013 - Requires the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to withhold a certain percentage of a state's apportionment of certain federal-aid highway funds for FY2016-FY2018, and each succeeding fiscal year, if the state has not enacted or is not enforcing a law that: (1) prohibits a driver from using a hand-held personal wireless communications device (such as a cell phone or smart phone) to text or call while driving; (2) allows the use of a hands-free device by a driver (other than a driver who is less than 18 years old) to call; (3) makes violation of the law a primary offense; (4) requires distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the state's driver's license examination; and (5) establishes certain minimum fines and increased civil and criminal penalties.
Excludes from the meaning of personal wireless communications device a global navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency notification, or navigation (GPS).
Declares that laws meet the requirements of this Act without regard to whether it provides exceptions for driver: (1) use of a cell phone in emergency situations, and (2) use of a cell phone to activate its hands-free capabilities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to establish a research program to study distracted driving by passenger and commercial vehicle drivers.
Directs the the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to report to Congress on existing and developing wireless communications technology that may be used to reduce problems associated with distracted driving.
People & committees
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] · D–NY
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 Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 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.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 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: Aug 12, 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.1664 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.1664 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.1664 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.1664 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.