PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 18, 2011
Drive to Stay Alive Act of 2011 - Requires the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to withhold 5% of a state's apportionment of certain federal-aid highway funds for FY2012, and each succeeding fiscal year, if the state has not enacted and implemented a law that: (1) prohibits a driver from using a personal wireless communications device (cell phone, but excluding a global navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency notification, or navigation [GPS]) to call or text while driving when there is a minor in the vehicle, (2) makes violation of the law a primary offense, and (3) establishes certain minimum fines and increased civil and criminal penalties.
Permits laws meeting the requirements of this Act to provide exceptions for driver: (1) use of a hands-free device (other than a driver who is a minor), (2) use of a cell phone in emergency situations, and (3) use of a cell phone by a commercial motor vehicle driver or school bus driver.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-17] · D–FL
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 Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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 14, 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.2575 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.2575 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.2575 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.2575 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.