PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 1997
Deadly Driver Reduction and Burton H. Greene Memorial Act - Amends Federal transportation law to require the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of the funds authorized for Federal aid highway programs for FY 2001, and ten percent of such amounts for subsequent fiscal years, from any State that has not enacted and is not enforcing a law that provides the following minimum sentences for operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol: (1) revocation of driver's license for six months, in the case of a first conviction; (2) revocation for one year, in the case of a second conviction; and (3) permanent revocation, in the case of a third or subsequent conviction. Allows funds withheld from a State during FY 2001 to be available for up to three fiscal years after such date (to allow a State to meet such requirement within such period), but allows no grace period with respect to funds withheld during the subsequent fiscal years.
People & committees
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-18] · 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 Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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 21, 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.982 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.982 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.982 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.982 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.