PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-252.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 10, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on July 10, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Repeals the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) prescribe regulations to require passenger motor vehicle dealers to distribute to prospective buyers information comparing insurance costs for different makes and models of passenger motor vehicles based on damage susceptibility and crashworthiness.
Declares any regulations promulgated pursuant to that requirement to have no force or effect.
Directs the Secretary, after providing for public comment, to study and report to Congress on the most useful data, format, and method for providing simple and understandable damage susceptibility information to consumers.
People & committees
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS-3] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-252.
Became Public Law No: 112-252.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8378)
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8378)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5098)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5098)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5859.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5098-5100)
Mrs. Bono Mack moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 427.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 112-591.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 112-591.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.5859 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.5859 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.5859 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.5859 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.