By Bob Goodlatte

As a former Republican member of Congress, I have long believed that limited government, free enterprise and consumer choice are not simply campaign slogans. They are governing principles. Republicans have rightly warned for decades that Washington should be cautious before forcing private companies and consumers into one-size-fits-all decisions.

That is why the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act should not be brought to the House floor under an expedited process that prohibits amendments. Members would be asked to take it or leave it. And what they would be asked to accept is an eight-year federal requirement forcing automakers to include AM radio in new vehicles.

That is not limited government. That is not consumer choice. That is not the free market. It is Washington picking a technology, freezing it in place and telling manufacturers and consumers that political pressure matters more than innovation, cost or demand.

Supporters say this is about public safety. But that argument grows weaker by the year. Americans receive emergency alerts on smartphones, smartwatches, connected vehicles, weather apps, text alerts, television, satellite services and other modern communications platforms. No one disputes that emergency information matters. The question is whether Congress should force every new vehicle sold in America to preserve a 100-year-old technology because one powerful industry does not want to adapt.

The concern is that Congress would be stepping beyond its proper role. Rather than allowing manufacturers and consumers to determine which technologies belong in the dashboard, Washington would be choosing one platform and requiring it in every new vehicle, regardless of changing consumer habits, technical design choices or cost.

Republicans understand that markets work because consumers decide what succeeds. If drivers value AM radio, automakers have every incentive to provide it. If consumers prefer satellite radio, streaming, podcasts, Bluetooth or other digital options, the market should reflect that, too. The answer should not be for Congress to step in and force every buyer to subsidize technology that manufacturers may no longer want to install and consumers may no longer use.

It is especially important to remember that families remain concerned about the cost of cars, insurance, repairs and everyday life. It is right to focus on affordability and reduce unnecessary burdens on consumers and businesses. A new federal equipment mandate moves in the wrong direction by adding requirements whose costs will ultimately be reflected somewhere in the marketplace.

Automakers are unlikely to absorb those costs indefinitely. As with other federal requirements, the burden is likely to be passed along to consumers in some form. We should be particularly wary of mandates that appear modest in isolation but, over time, contribute to higher prices, reduced flexibility and less innovation.

Ronald Reagan once joked that the government’s view of the economy could be summed up this way: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” The AM radio mandate manages to capture that entire critique in one bill: regulate the automakers, subsidize the broadcasters and send the bill to consumers.

If we need a warning sign, just look at China, where government agencies are moving toward a mandatory in-vehicle radio reception standard on public safety grounds. America should not be taking policy cues from a communist government that tells manufacturers what technologies they must build into private products. Our Republican leaders have spoken forcefully in the past about the dangers of Washington mandates. They were right to do so. The same principle applies here. A mandate does not become less intrusive simply because it is attached to a familiar technology.

Automakers should be allowed to compete. If we believe in consumer choice, legislators should let drivers choose. If we believe in lower costs, legislators should avoid adding federal requirements to products Americans already struggle to afford. And for those of us who believe in limited government, legislators should not use an expedited, unamendable process to advance a technology mandate without a full and open debate.

The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act may be well-intentioned, but good intentions do not justify unnecessary federal mandates. For those of us who believe in free markets, limited government, innovation and consumer freedom, the better course is to trust consumers and the marketplace. On this bill, the conservative vote is no.