S. 5222Senate bill · 119th CongressIn committee

DRIVE Across America Act of 2026

Sponsored byCatherine Cortez MastoD-NVIntroduced Aug 3, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 3, 2026) Read twice and on Energy and Natural Resources.

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.

Face Value

as introduced
84Focused

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Areas of law−16

    Amends 3 separate titles of the US Code: 23, 49, 54.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

11 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay20d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
18
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Nay23d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
4
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Yea22d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
1
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea20d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
18
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Yea23d ago
Genuine question for people on both sides: what does success look like five years out? If we can't answer that, what are we voting on?
14
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay24d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
2
kbmontroseDemoNM-2voted Yea23d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
5
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea20d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
4
rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Yea17d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
6
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay21d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
10
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea24d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
Your position on S. 522242% Yea · 24 VoteWire users