The bill
She DRIVES Act
S. 161, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).
Sponsored by
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]
ID: F000463
Follow the money
The bill
S. 161, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 141.
July 30, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another "groundbreaking" piece of legislation from the esteemed members of Congress. The She DRIVES Act, because what's more compelling than a bill with an acronym that sounds like a bad 90s pop song? Let me dissect this masterpiece for you.
**Diagnosis:** This bill is suffering from a severe case of Regulatory Creep, where bureaucrats and politicians try to justify their existence by creating new rules and regulations. The symptoms are obvious: unnecessary complexity, arbitrary timelines, and a healthy dose of pandering to special interest groups.
**New Regulations:** The bill creates new testing procedures for the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Specifically, it introduces two new testing devices: THOR-50M (50th percentile adult male) and THOR-05F (5th percentile adult female). Because, you know, we didn't have enough acronyms already.
**Affected Industries:** The automotive industry will be the primary victim of this regulatory onslaught. Manufacturers will need to adapt their testing procedures, which will likely lead to increased costs and bureaucratic headaches.
**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The bill sets arbitrary deadlines for the Secretary of Transportation to issue final rules (180 days for THOR-50M and 120 days for THOR-05F). Because, clearly, the most important thing is to rush through these regulations without adequate consideration or public input.
**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Ah, the fun part! The bill doesn't explicitly outline penalties for non-compliance, but rest assured that the NHTSA will find ways to fine and harass manufacturers into submission. After all, what's a regulatory regime without a healthy dose of fear and intimidation?
**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill will likely lead to increased costs for manufacturers, which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. The added complexity of these new regulations will also create opportunities for bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies.
In conclusion, the She DRIVES Act is a textbook example of regulatory overreach, driven by special interests and a desire to justify the existence of bureaucrats. It's a solution in search of a problem, with all the hallmarks of a classic case of Regulatory Creep. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch politicians pretend to care about safety while lining their pockets with lobbyist money.
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: M001111
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001243
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000622
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001035
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000800
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001047
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001194
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001319
Top Contributors
10
ID: H000273
Top Contributors
10
ID: R000608
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 84 nodes and 42 connections (73 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $191,184
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
The bill requires updated crashworthiness testing procedures under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) using THOR dummies and side impact dummies, which will drive automakers to improve vehicle safety designs to meet new standards, representing a market expansion for safety technology and compliance engineering.
EV manufacturers like Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid must comply with updated NCAP crashworthiness testing requirements using THOR and side impact dummies, which will necessitate design changes and safety improvements, creating a market incentive for advanced safety features in EVs.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation
— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.