PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 16, 2013
Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to withhold specified graduated percentages of a state's apportionment of certain federal-aid highway funds for FY2015-FY2017 if the state has not enacted and is not enforcing a law requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device for a minimum of 180 days on each motor vehicle operated by an individual convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
Defines "driving while intoxicated" and "driving under the influence" as driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration greater than or equal to the lesser of: (1) the blood alcohol concentration limit of the state in which the individual is driving, or (2) 0.08%.
Requires an ignition interlock device to: (1) require a driver to provide a breath sample before the motor vehicle starts, and (2) prevent a motor vehicle from starting if the alcohol concentration of the driver is above the legal limit.
People & committees
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
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 Environment and Public Works.
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.979 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.979 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.979 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.979 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.