The No Kill Switches in Cars Act, also known as H.R. 1137, proposes to repeal a requirement for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a federal safety standard mandating the installation of advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology in certain passenger vehicles. Currently, there is no such federal standard. These technologies are designed to passively monitor drivers for impairment and prevent vehicle operation if impairment is detected.
Supporters of the No Kill Switches in Cars Act argue that it protects drivers' privacy and autonomy by removing a mandate for technology that could interfere with vehicle operation. They believe it prevents potential overreach by ensuring that drivers maintain control over their vehicles without mandatory monitoring systems.
Critics of the No Kill Switches in Cars Act contend that repealing the requirement for drunk and impaired driving prevention technology could hinder efforts to reduce accidents caused by impaired driving. They argue that such technology could significantly enhance road safety by preventing impaired individuals from operating vehicles.
The bill H.R.1137 — H.R. 1137: No Kill Switches in Cars Act sponsored by Scott Perry shows a low risk of conflict of interest. There are no direct overlaps detected between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. This means that the sponsor's financial backers do not appear to have a direct financial stake in the legislation. However, there is lobbying activity in the bill's policy area. The most significant contributions come from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians ($70,000), the National Energy & Fuels Institute ($60,000), and the American Composites Manufacturers Association ($20,000). The exact amounts from Clearinghouse CDFI, NSight Health, Inc., Wing Aviation LLC, Robert Trent Jones II LLC, American Society of Golf Course Architects, and Alliance of Professionals & Consultants on behalf of IBM Corp are undisclosed. The total disclosed lobbying activity amounts to $150,000.
Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.
| Client | Lobbying Firm | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS | PACE, LLP | $70,000 |
| NATIONAL ENERGY & FUELS INSTITUTE | NATIONAL ENERGY & FUELS INSTITUTE | $60,000 |
| AMERICAN COMPOSITES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION | AMERICAN COMPOSITES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION | $20,000 |
| LEONARDO DRS, INC | HITHER CREEK STRATEGIES, LLC | $15,000 |
| HOPFLYT INC | HITHER CREEK STRATEGIES, LLC | $10,000 |
| SL STRATEGIES OBO AANA | HITHER CREEK STRATEGIES, LLC | $10,000 |
| CLEARINGHOUSE CDFI | MONTICELLO ADVISORY GROUP | undisclosed |
| NSIGHT HEALTH, INC. | MONTICELLO ADVISORY GROUP | undisclosed |
| WING AVIATION LLC | WING AVIATION LLC | undisclosed |
| ROBERT TRENT JONES II LLC | PLATINUM ADVISORS DC, LLC | undisclosed |
| AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS | PLATINUM ADVISORS DC, LLC | undisclosed |
| ALLIANCE OF PROFESSIONALS & CONSULTANTS ON BEHALF OF IBM CORP | PLATINUM ADVISORS DC, LLC | undisclosed |
| SAVE GREATER DOWSES BEACH | HITHER CREEK STRATEGIES, LLC | undisclosed |
| GDX CORPORATION | HITHER CREEK STRATEGIES, LLC | undisclosed |
| TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MA | HITHER CREEK STRATEGIES, LLC | undisclosed |
Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026
