PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 9, 2003
State Accountability and Identity Fraud Elimination Act of 2004 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold specified Federal highway funds in increasing percentages starting in FY 2006 from any State that has enacted a law that allows the issuance of an identification card or a driver's license to an alien who is not legally authorized to be in the United States. Provides that funds withheld from apportionment to any State: (1) on or before September 30, 2005, shall remain available until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated; and (2) after September 30, 2007, shall not be available for apportionment to the State.
People & committees
Rep. Tancredo, Thomas G. [R-CO-6] · R–CO
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, Transit and Pipelines.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H8070)
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 18, 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.3052 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.3052 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.3052 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.3052 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.