PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.655 / 108th Congress

To bar Federal agencies from accepting for any identification-related purpose a State-issued driver's license, or other comparable identification document, unless the State requires a license or comparable document issued to a nonimmigrant alien to expire upon the expiration of the alien's authorized period of stay in the United States, and for other purposes.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 7, 2003

Prohibits Federal agencies (as defined by this Act) from accepting for any identification-related purpose any State-issued driver's license or other comparable identification document unless the State requires such licenses or documents issued to nonimmigrant aliens to expire on a date that is not later than: (1) the expiration of the alien's authorized U.S. stay; or (2) five years after such document's expiration in any case in which the alien's lawful stay is modified after U.S. admission, or does not expire on a fixed date.Directs the Attorney General to make grants to assist States in issuing appropriate licenses and identification documents.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
  • Oversight and Government Reform Committee
25 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.

  2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

  3. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.

  4. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.

  5. Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.

  6. Introduced in House

  7. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Feb 4, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.655 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.655 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.655 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.655 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.

View full prompt & sources