PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 30, 2013
Drug Free Commercial Driver Act of 2013 - Revises regulations that require motor carriers to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of commercial motor vehicle operators for controlled substances or alcohol.
Allows motor carriers to use hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urinalysis for detecting use of controlled substances by an operator, but only for preemployment testing and random testing (but the latter only if the motor carrier tested the operator at preemployment using the same method).
Requires the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to develop requirements for laboratories and testing procedures for controlled substances that include mandatory guidelines that establish, among other things, laboratory protocols and cut-off levels for hair testing to detect the use of such substances.
Allows any motor carrier that demonstrates it has consistently carried out a generally applicable hair testing program during the most recent one-year period to apply to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for exemption from mandatory urinalysis testing.
People & committees
Sen. Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR] · D–AR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1625 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 S.1625 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 S.1625 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 S.1625 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.