H.R. 10822House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To restrict the usage of automated license plate reader system by governmental entities, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byPat HarriganR-NC-10Introduced Oct 15, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 15, 2026) — on Oversight and 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.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

17 comments

Sort

greta.okaforDemoTX-36voted Nay2d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

back_cartographerDemoNC-10voted Nay3d ago

Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-32d ago

Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.

yara.novakDemoVT-ALvoted Yea3d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay2d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

lauren_vDemoOK-21d ago

Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea5h ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay17h ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

granite_porchDemoKY-2voted Nay2d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

leona.nakamuraDemoIL-12voted Yea3d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Yea13h ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Nay14h ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea8h ago

"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?

omar.vasquezDemoNY-5voted Nay2d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay3d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The committee report would settle it either way.

nell.ferreiraDemoNC-63d ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

kwame_commuterDemoMD-7voted Nay1d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

Your position on H.R. 10822No positions yet