AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. MASSIE

On 2026-01-22, Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT-3) delivered a floor speech titled "AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. MASSIE" in the House. The speech addressed taxes and also covered the environment, infrastructure. It referenced legislation including HR7148, HRES1014.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. MASSIE

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 15 (Thursday, January 22, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 15 (Thursday, January 22, 2026)] [House] [Pages H1297-H1299] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. MASSIE The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed the part B of House Report 119-462. Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of Title I of Division D, insert the following: Sec. 195. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (49 U.S.C. 30111 note). The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1014, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky. {time} 1300 Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment. This is cosponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy). I regret that we have to offer this amendment. What I am going to describe will probably sound like a bad science fiction movie, but that is what is written into law. Right now, in law that is going to be implemented, it says, for 2026 and beyond--now, the reality is that technology doesn't exist, but that doesn't keep legislators from imagining things that they would like to do to infringe on civil liberties. However, there is a law that states that every vehicle manufactured is going to have to have a kill switch in it. The car itself will monitor your driving, and if the car thinks that you are not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself, so the car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner. Imagine this: We have a snowstorm coming. A mom takes her kids out to go to the grocery store. It is snowing, and they are trying to get some groceries before the big storm hits. She swerves for a pothole. The neighbor's pet gets in the way, and she swerves for that. A first responder goes by. She pulls over. Her car says: You have one more swerve, and then we are going to ground you. There it is, the next thing she has to avoid, an icy patch in the road. The car has adjudicated her as unsuitable for driving. It disables the vehicle, and there she is stranded. My question is, how do you appeal your sentence once the technology in your car has judged you to be incapable of driving? Once it has disabled you and your children at the side of the road, how do you appeal that? Do you press a button on the dashboard? Do you start talking to an AI? What if it really was somebody who was drunk? Are you really going to send a police car after this disabled vehicle? Do we have the resources to do that? There are going to be so many false positives. The technology is unworkable, which is why the DOT is still in the rulemaking process, asking for feedback on how this thing could even exist. It is just a bad idea, but it is in law, so our amendment would defund that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, the bipartisan infrastructure law requires drunk and impaired driving technology to become standard equipment in new cars once a rule has been finalized by the Department of Transportation. More than 30 people in the United States die every day in drunk driving crashes, and more than 12,000 people a year suffer these preventable deaths. Using the appropriations process to delay or in any way impede the development of technology to prevent drunk driving is inappropriate and reckless. What we have before us today is a bipartisan, conferenced bill. It is already a compromise from what Members on both sides of the aisle wanted. Debating and attaching an amendment to this bill risks the entire package. Mr. Chair, I look forward to the time when we can debate the substance of this amendment because I have some thoughts on the data that I want the administration to be thinking about, but the time for debate on the individual policies is not now. This amendment, which could delay the technology that would limit drunk driving and save lives, is not the amendment to support. This amendment should not be inserted into this bipartisan bill at this point in the process. I strongly oppose it and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, drunk driving is a serious problem, but 31 States already have the technology to keep drunk drivers off the road with ignition interlock devices that they can mandate. This technology that is in the law is not going to fix the drunk driving problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend. Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his work on this, and of course the chairman of the full committee for the hard work on appropriations. Look, none of us wants to be on the road with drunk drivers. Of course, this was a solution intended to deal with them. All of us want them to be dealt with. I am going to remind everybody, as my friend from Kentucky just said, there is already legislation in multiple States, dozens of States, that deals with drunk drivers through the ignition interlock system. Probably in your family somewhere, someone you know, you have dealt with this. I know in my family and the people I know, I have dealt with it. Here is what I don't want to see in America: Everybody, including the ones who don't drink and drive, being punished for the people who drink and drive. I happen not to drink, but I am going to be forced to have this thing in my car. I am going to tell you what is next. After what Representative Massie has said, the car is going to be the judge, jury, and sentencer for your crime in the car. The next thing is going to be that we need to hook this thing up to the government so we can dispatch the police. I am just going to tell you what is going to happen next. They are going to be shutting your car off when they decide whatever they decide from wherever they decide it. I don't know what everyone thinks about due process, the Constitution, - the Fourth Amendment, and the right to not be imposed upon by illegal, unlawful search and seizure, but punishing everybody for this crime, whether they have committed it or not, whether they are going to commit it or not, should be unconstitutional. This shouldn't really be a question. We all want to get to the problem, and we are happy to work with everybody on all sides to deal with it, but you cannot punish and convict everybody in the country for the sake of the ones who do things that they shouldn't do. Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15 seconds remaining. Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong opposition to this amendment. In 2023, 12,429 people died in drunk driving crashes nationwide. In Kentucky alone, 198 people were killed. In [[Page H1298]] Pennsylvania, 321 people lost their lives. These deaths were preventable. Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology will prevent impaired drivers from illegally operating vehicles and causing deaths and injuries. I understand that my Republican colleagues are concerned about privacy, but the technology being developed does not track the vehicle's location or collect, use, or store any data that would compromise the privacy of vehicle occupants. Privacy is a concern, and my friends should weigh in on the rulemaking process. NHTSA, the agency involved with this, should work with government agencies that have expertise in this area to ensure that consumer data is secure, anonymous, and protected from unauthorized use. That can and should be addressed as part of the rulemaking process. It is not right, though. Preventing impaired drivers from illegally operating vehicles and causing fatalities should be a nonpartisan issue, and the work on that needs to continue. The problem here is that while NHTSA has not finalized the rule, they would not be able to do any work related to the rule or advanced alcohol monitoring technology if this amendment passes. That is going to just cause more deaths from drunk driving. I would implore everybody: Please, privacy can be addressed, but we should not stop this work from continuing. We can't have drunk drivers on the road. It is not just them but everyone else who is killed and injured as a result of those drunk drivers. Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I would inquire whether the gentleman is prepared to close. Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I have one additional speaker. Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Gillen). Ms. GILLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Every day, 34 families lose a loved one to a drunk driving crash. Drunk driving remains the leading cause of death on our highways. Unfortunately, the problem is getting worse every year, despite interlock devices. Far too many Long Island families know the pain of a life cut short. I know several families who have lost their children to drunk drivers. Mr. Chair, these tragedies are absolutely preventable, and we know what a solution is. The bipartisan HALT Drunk Driving Act, which was passed more than 4 years ago, would require new vehicles to be equipped with this new technology, and the change will help save m

Referenced legislation: HRES1014, HR7148