PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Subjects passenger vans to the same safety standards applicable to passenger motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Amends the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to require vehicle manufacturers to provide the Secretary of Transportation with all motor vehicle warranty and repair information the manufacturer provides its dealers. Directs the Secretary, through the Auto Safety Hotline of the National Traffic Safety Administration, to make such information available to the public. Subjects manufacturers to civil penalties for failure to provide such information.
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 Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on 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.265 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.265 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.265 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.265 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.