PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 2, 2004
Drug Impaired Driving Research and Prevention Act - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop and provide to the States a model statute relating to drug impaired driving which incorporates certain mandatory and discretionary provisions, including, at a minimum, a provision that the crime of drug impaired driving is committed when a person operates a motor vehicle: (1) while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body; or (2) due to the presence of a controlled substance or a controlled substance in combination with alcohol or an inhalant, or both, the person's mental or physical faculties are affected to a noticeable degree.
Specifies discretionary provisions, including: (1) sanctions for refusing to submit to a drug test which are equivalent to sanctions for a positive test result; (2) a graduated system of penalties for repeat offenses; (3) authorization for States to suspend or revoke the license of a driver convicted of driving while under the influence of a controlled substance; and (4) a system of evaluation, counseling, treatment, and supervision for persons convicted of drug impaired driving.
Authorizes the Secretary to use certain funds for research and development in drug detection and testing technology.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Specifies certain training goals to enhance the State's ability to detect, enforce, and prosecute drug impaired driving laws.
Requires the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to advise and coordinate with other Federal agencies on how to address the problem of driving under the influence of an illegal drug, and to conduct research on the prevention, detection, and prosecution of driving under the influence of an illegal drug.
People & committees
Rep. Portman, Rob [R-OH-2] · R–OH
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 Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 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.4159 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.4159 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.4159 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.4159 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.