PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 16, 2015
Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act of 2015
Directs the Department of Transportation to withhold specified graduated percentages of a state's apportionment of certain federal-aid highway funds for FY2018-FY2020 if the state has not enacted and is not enforcing a law requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device for a minimum of 180 days on each motor vehicle operated by an individual convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
Defines "driving while intoxicated" and "driving under the influence" as driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or greater.
Requires an ignition interlock device to:
require a driver to provide a breath sample before the motor vehicle starts, and
prevent a motor vehicle from starting if the alcohol concentration of the driver is above the legal limit.
Authorizes reduction of the 180-day period to 90 days if:
the driver's license is suspended for a minimum of 180 days as a result of the conviction, and
the period for installation of an ignition interlock device begins after the last day of the suspension.
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 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.3759 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.3759 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.3759 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.3759 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.