Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Connected Vehicle Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Commerce Committee advances Connected Vehicle Security Act after failed scope amendment
Summary
The committee reported S.4429, the Connected Vehicle Security Act, after debate and a roll-call rejection of a narrowing amendment that would have aligned scope with a BIS rule. Supporters framed the bill as national-security and consumer-protection legislation.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation moved S.4429, the Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026, to be favorably reported to the Senate floor after extended debate and a roll-call vote on an amendment. Senator Cantwell moved the bill to be reported; sponsors and defenders said the measure aims to keep vehicle software and hardware from foreign entities of concern off U.S. roads.
Senator Moreno, a sponsor, entered letters of support from labor unions and industry and described the bill as protecting against national-security risks, economic predation and consumer harms. "Your automobiles today are roving electronic devices," Moreno said, urging unanimous committee support. Senator Duckworth offered a technical amendment (Duckworth 1, modified) to align the bill's definition of covered components with a Bureau of Industry and Security rule finalized in January 2025, arguing the change would focus the prohibition on vehicle connectivity systems and provide regulatory certainty. "This technical amendment provides regulatory certainty in the market," Duckworth said.
Senators debated whether the amendment narrowed necessary national-security protections. Senator Peters opposed the change, saying it would leave other threat vectors unaddressed and undercut the bill's goal of reducing reliance on foreign supply chains. The clerk called a roll; the amendment failed, with the clerk recording 9 yeses and 19 noes and the chair announcing, "The amendment is not adopted." The committee later reported the underlying bill favorably by voice vote and authorized staff to make technical and conforming changes.
The markup also included extended exchanges about implementation timelines and industry impacts; sponsors noted the law's prohibitions do not fully take effect for several years to allow onshoring. The committee paused legislative work during the session to consider executive nominations and returned to finish the markup before adjourning.
