FULL CREDIT GOES TO WUSA9 for this stories content. Appreciate the fact checking done by them there….
Breathalyzers, mileage tracking, huge spending and huge invasion of privacy? Full breakdown on the next RobDiddy podcast posting later tonight.
A per-mile user fee differs from the gas tax, because it would charge drivers for the distance they travel, rather than the amount of gas they use.
“So instead of paying at the pump for a gallon, you would pay based on the amount of miles you put on your car,” said Michele Nellenbach from the Bipartisan Policy Center. “And so the provisions in the bill are to allow folks to opt into a pilot program and experiment, basically, to see how it would work.”
- Michele Nellenbach, Bipartisan Policy Center
- Randal O’Toole, Cato Institute
- Joseph Kane, Fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution
- White House Spokesperson
- The Text Of The Bill, H.R. 3684
Yes, if passed, the bill would create a pilot program, to evaluate the effectiveness and practicability of a per-mile user fee. Participants who volunteer to be in the study, will pay mileage fees, although they will be refunded by the government.
WHAT WE FOUND
The Verify team received multiple emails from viewers, who were curious about the proposed per-mile user fee.
“Does president Biden’s infrastructure Bill contain a pilot program to test mileage tax,” asked a viewer named Doris.
The claim has been spreading on social media as well. To find out the truth, the Verify team looked to the bill itself, and got context from experts in the field.
Details of the proposed pilot program can be found on page 508 of the bill, in section 13002, titled “National Motor Vehicle Per-Mile User Fee Pilot.”
Participants would keep paying the gas tax, but would also start paying a per-mile user fee. Those rates would be established by the Department of the Treasury, and once collected, the revenue would go to the Highway Trust Fund. The government would then refund the costs for these participants.
BUT WAIT FROM THE SAME SOURCE
The claim about alcohol monitoring systems has received a lot of attention, especially from those critical about the expansiveness of the bill. But advocates against drunk driving have celebrated the policy.
The policy is outlined in section 24220, titled “Advanced Impaired Driving Technology,” starting on page 1,066.
The policy dictates that within three years, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, should do the following (bolded by WUSA9): “issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard… that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.”
According to the bill, this technology should do the following:
- “Passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;”
- “Passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected.”
- Or a combination of the two.