PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 1993
Prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of certain motor vehicles or rail cars unless they are equipped with seat belts, with particular emphasis on the use of a flight attendant double shoulder harness mechanism. Declares that such prohibition shall apply to: (1) any motor or rail carrier; and (2) any Federal, State, or local entity, school district, charitable organization, church, or other public or private entity providing transportation to passengers by motor vehicle or by rail. Requires persons who own or operate a motor vehicle or rail car constructed before enactment of this Act and used to provide passenger transportation for compensation, or to transport children under the age of 18, to equip such vehicle or rail car with seat belts or flight attendant double shoulder harness mechanisms. Sets forth civil penalties for violations of such prohibition.
People & committees
Rep. Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. [D-IN-10] · D–IN
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 Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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: Jan 2, 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.205 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.205 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.205 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.205 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.