Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2844

Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act of 2025

HR. 2844, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$91,470 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 467-469 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 463.

March 2, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 2844: A Bill that Fosters Voluntary Compliance, but Lacks Teeth**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act of 2025, which aims to establish a voluntary program for employers to demonstrate their commitment to workplace safety. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it falls short of true innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2844 is to create a voluntary protection program that encourages excellence in workplace safety and health management systems. The program aims to recognize employers who demonstrate a commitment to protecting their employees from occupational hazards.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. Establishes the Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program, which allows employers to participate voluntarily. 2. Sets requirements for participating employers, including systematic hazard assessments, comprehensive prevention and mitigation programs, employee participation, and safety training. 3. Exempts participating worksites from programmed inspections during their participation in the program.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Employers who choose to participate in the voluntary protection program. 2. Employees working at participating worksites. 3. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which will oversee the program.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While this bill promotes a culture of safety, it lacks teeth. By making participation voluntary, it may not lead to significant improvements in workplace safety. Moreover, the exemptions from programmed inspections may create uneven playing fields for non-participating employers.

From my perspective as a visionary entrepreneur, I believe that true innovation requires bold action, not incremental steps. This bill should have gone further by:

1. Providing incentives for participation, such as tax breaks or deregulation. 2. Implementing more stringent requirements for participating employers. 3. Allowing private sector entities to take on a greater role in overseeing workplace safety.

As it stands, HR 2844 is a lukewarm attempt at reform. I'll be watching closely to see how this bill evolves and whether it will truly drive meaningful change in the realm of workplace safety.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** This bill's impact on my business interests will be negligible, as we already prioritize workplace safety and have implemented robust safety protocols. However, I do see opportunities for growth and consolidation in the occupational health and safety sector, particularly if this bill leads to increased demand for private sector solutions.

**Recommendations:**

1. Strengthen the program's requirements and incentives. 2. Explore public-private partnerships to enhance workplace safety oversight. 3. Consider deregulation measures to encourage innovation in the occupational health and safety sector.

By taking a more bold and visionary approach, we can create a safer, more efficient, and more prosperous work environment for all.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$91,470

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$91,470

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

BROWN, NANCY I.

1 transaction

$6,600

NANCY, BROWN

1 transaction

$6,600

GREGORY, LUCINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

BANKE, BARBARA R

1 transaction

$6,600

MORRIS, GLENN

1 transaction

$6,600

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J MISS

1 transaction

$6,600

WAGNER, SHARI

2 transactions

$6,600

EGER, MORDECHI

1 transaction

$5,000

BORDEAU, BRAD

1 transaction

$5,000

BENTZ, KAREN

1 transaction

$5,000

MOUNTAIN, MONICA

1 transaction

$3,600

STOWERS, WES

1 transaction

$3,435

VACIRCA, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,435

DOWLER, ANN

1 transaction

$3,300

RAY, RICHIE

1 transaction

$3,300

SPARKS, L DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

VIDRINE, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

PATEL, GOPESH

1 transaction

$3,300

WAGNER, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]

ID: T000460

Top Contributors

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$500

Oct 27, 2024

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$30

Nov 3, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

EASTERN BANK OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 7, 2024

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 23, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 49 nodes and 23 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $95,300

Top Donors - Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(3) requires active and meaningful management and employee participation in the voluntary protection program, which benefits labor unions by increasing worker involvement in safety programs.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 467-469AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's OSHA voluntary protection program supports the Project 2025 EPA policy's presumption that workplaces follow OSHA requirements in chemical risk evaluations, but it does not directly address chemical evaluations, pesticides, TSCA fees, or other EPA-specific reforms."

Key themes:OSHA complianceworkplace safetyrisk management presumptionvoluntary protection programsemployee safety training

— 434 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that new chemical evaluations are conducted in a timely manner, consistent with statutory requirements, to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. l For new chemicals, reset the program to ensure that reviews are completed on a timeline that is consistent with the statute. This includes revising the regulations governing the reviews of new chemicals. l Ensure that risk evaluations and risk management rules presume that workplaces are following all OSHA requirements, including requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE). l Apply real-world use of chemicals when assessing conditions of use for risk evaluations. l Transition the Safer Choice program to the private sector. l Right-size the TSCA fee’s rule so that it is consistent with the tasks that the agency is actually completing within the timelines of the statute and is not covering the costs of EPA inefficiency or overreach. l Revise existing policies to address the requirements of the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the TSCA.41 l Develop a framework rule for risk management approaches that will be used under TSCA for existing chemicals. Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPP (Pesticides) l OPP should rely on Department of Agriculture and state usage data that reflect actual pesticide use in registration reviews and Endangered Species Act (ESA)42 analyses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service should rely on similar data in their ESA analyses. l OPP has rigorous testing requirements that registrants must meet before pesticides are allowed on the market. However, when pesticides undergo registration review every 15 years, EPA relies on publicly available data with differing levels of quality and transparency. Data standards are needed to ensure that information relied on by EPA is made available to the agency at a similar level as the original testing data conducted by registrants to ensure that EPA can conduct a robust review and analysis of the data. — 435 — Environmental Protection Agency l ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides. In order to meet ESA obligations, pesticide uses are severely restricted, leaving growers with limited tools for crop protection. l New policies are needed to ensure that other program offices (such as ORD, OW, and OLEM) will defer to OPP on toxicity issues. OPP has rigorous testing requirements for pesticide ingredients and products to ensure before they go to market that their use will not harm human health and the environment. Assessments by other offices are redundant. l While individual pesticide registrations are considered adjudications and not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with a 1993 OMB guidance, when pesticide tolerances and registrations are withdrawn by the agency (as opposed to being withdrawn voluntarily by registrants), these actions should undergo coordinated interagency review managed by OMB. Budget The Biden Administration has expanded the scope and breadth of regulatory actions with respect to OPPT and OPP, but both programs continue to maintain that resources are insufficient. OPPT (chemicals) suffers from a lack of leadership and an inability to complete the most basic requirements efficiently and in a timely fashion. While EPA has asked for more resources, including higher industry fees, it is not clear that it has the capacity to use additional dollars efficiently. With regard to OPP (pesticides), pesticide manufacturers feel that the program is underfunded and would like its budget to be increased so that pesticide actions can be reviewed more quickly. Manufacturers are also willing to pay higher fees to the fee-based portion of the program. However, grower groups have been dis- appointed by EPA’s actions and have significant concerns about EPA’s ability to conduct science-based risk assessments and take risk management actions that appropriately balance benefits and risks as required by FIFRA. Guardrails and third-party audits should be part of any funding increases through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)43 or other mechanisms. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) AND RELATED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES While much of this work has not been authorized by law, EPA conducts a wide variety of intramural and extramural research, development, regulatory science,

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 464-466AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on OSHA's voluntary workplace safety program, while the Project 2025 EPA section deals with environmental cleanup, waste management, and chemical regulation; there is minimal direct thematic overlap."

Key themes:regulatory oversightvoluntary complianceprogram modernization

— 432 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Expand and fully stand up the Office of Mountains, Deserts and Plains to support innovative approaches to the cleaning up of abandoned mines. l Develop and execute a 10-year cleanup plan to address lead at all existing cleanup sites that includes benchmarks and milestones that allow for congressional and public oversight of the schedule. RCRA. To streamline waste management, the following changes are needed in the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR): l Create an RCRA post-closure care permit that is tailored only to post- closure obligations. l Modify regulations that impede resource efficiency, recycling, and reuse by providing clearly that these materials are not waste. This can be done by promulgating a rule that provides an alternative pathway to hazardous waste regulation to allow the transport of material to legitimate recyclers or back to manufacturers to support the recycling and reuse of material. l Change the electronic manifest (e-manifest) regulations to a 100 percent electronic system and eliminate all paper manifests and manual filing and data input. This system should operate from a range of common handheld devices and could be expanded to accommodate solid waste and materials for reuse and recycling. l Reassign regulation and enforcement of air emission standards under the authority of RCRA Section 300437 to OAR and revise and modernize the regulations to comport and integrate with CAA rules. Risk Management Program. If a new Risk Management Program (RMP) rule is finalized by the Biden Administration, it should be revised to reflect the amend- ments finalized in 2019 to protect sensitive information. Personnel The following organizational changes could create resource efficiencies to focus on the highest-value opportunities: l Eliminate or consolidate the regional laboratories and allow OLEM to use EPA, other government, or private labs based on expertise and cost. — 433 — Environmental Protection Agency l Consolidate non-core functions (communications, economists, congressional relations, etc.) into one OLEM suboffice to allow the subject- matter offices to focus on the execution of field work. l Eliminate the Office of Emergency Management and reassign its functions. 1. Move the emergency management function (currently OEM) into Homeland Security under the Administrator’s office. 2. Incorporate removal authority (currently OEM) into OSRTI. 3. Retain the oversight and enforcement of the RMP program within OLEM. 4. Drop “Emergency Management” from OLEM’s name. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government scope and spending, OLEM’s programs present the best opportunity to use taxpayer dollars to execute EPA’s core mission of cleaning up contamination. OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP) OCSPP primarily oversees the regulation of new and existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)38 and the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)39 and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).40 These activities are managed in two separate offices within OCSPP: the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT, chemicals) and Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP, pesticides). OCSPP is constantly pressured to ban the use of certain chemicals, typically based on fear as a result of mischaracterized or incomplete science. Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPPT (Chemicals) l Ensure that decision-making is risk-based rather than defaulting to precautionary, hazard-based approaches like the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). l Focus the scope of chemical evaluations on pathways of exposure that are not covered by other program offices and other environmental statutes, and eliminate scope creep to ensure that evaluations can be completed in a timely manner consistent with the statutory requirements.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on a voluntary OSHA safety program that reduces programmed inspections, which tangentially aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of reducing regulatory burdens, but it does not address the core Project 2025 themes of ending PLAs, repealing Davis‑Bacon, reforming unemployment benefits, or occupational licensing."

Key themes:Department of Laborregulatory reliefvoluntary programsinspection exemptionsworkplace safety

— 604 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise argue that the next Administration should end Project Labor Agreement require- ments and repeal the Davis–Bacon Act. And while some conservatives have chosen not to address massive federal subsidies for unionized labor, others believe that current laws and regulations that pick winners and losers to the detriment of the majority of construction workers and to all taxpayers should not be ignored. Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are short-term collective bargaining agreements that apply to construction projects. There are a few reasons that con- struction projects may benefit from a PLA, and there are many reasons that even when actively encouraged to do so public construction projects have declined to use PLAs. Among the consequences: The majority of construction firms and construction workers are not unionized and their temporary forced unionization results in large-scale wage theft; construction companies are significantly less likely to bid on projects with PLAs; and PLAs consistently drive up construction costs by 10 percent to 30 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act23 requires federally financed construction projects to pay “prevailing wages.” In theory, these wages should reflect going market rates for construction labor in the relevant area. However, both the Government Account- ability Office and the Department of Labor’s Inspector General have repeatedly criticized the Labor Department for using self-selected, statistically unrepresenta- tive samples to calculate the prevailing-wage rates that drive up the cost of federal construction by about 10 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act redistributes wealth from hardworking Americans to those that benefit from government-funded construc- tion projects. Repealing the Davis–Bacon Act would increase worker freedom and end a longstanding effective tax on American families. l End PLA requirements. Agencies should end all mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirements and base federal procurement decisions on the contractors that can deliver the best product at the lowest cost. l Repeal Davis–Bacon. Congress should enact the Davis–Bacon Repeal Act and allow markets to determine market wages. THE STATES Worker-led Benefits Experimentation. Workers depend on unemployment benefits to navigate inevitable market frictions and seek new employment oppor- tunities. But existing unemployment insurance (UI) is bureaucratic, ineffective, and unaccountable. The outdated system’s myriad failures during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for innovations that respond to recipients’ needs. The most promising avenue for innovation is to involve workers and private-sec- tor organizations more directly, freed from unnecessary bureaucratic strictures. Americans take for granted that unemployment benefits must be administered by — 605 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies government agencies, but other Western market democracies feature effective and popular benefits administered by non-public worker organizations. The next conservative Administration should encourage UI innovation by capi- talizing on a key feature of the system and principle of conservative policymaking: federalism. State governments already administer unemployment benefits and have broad discretion over their programs. Existing statutory language in the Social Security Act24 does not prohibit non-public organizations from administering the program, nor does it specifically authorize states to do so. Further, the Adminis- tration can replicate state-level experiments in welfare programs and empower state officials to adapt UI to local conditions and needs. l Approve non-public worker organizations as UI administrators. DOL should approve, pursuant to § 303(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, non- public worker organizations as administrators. l Offer waivers for suitable alternatives. DOL should offer waivers from the standard requirements imposed on unemployment compensation by § 303(a) and § 303(d) of the Social Security Act to states that propose suitable alternatives. l Require organizations to comply with restrictions on political spending. DOL should establish as a precondition for receiving any public funds a requirement that an organization comply with restrictions on political spending as applied to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Labor Law. The federal laws governing labor-management relations have barely changed in generations, and reforms on the federal level have been almost impossible to get through Congress. To modernize labor law, the Congress should: l Pass legislation allowing waivers for states and local governments. To encourage experimentation and reform efforts at the state and local levels, Congress should pass legislation allowing waivers from federal labor laws like the NLRA and FLSA under certain conditions. State and local governments seeking waivers would be required to demonstrate that their reforms would accomplish the purpose of the underlying law, and not take away any current rights held by workers or employers. In addition, waivers would be limited to a five-year period, after which time they could be modified, canceled, or renewed. Excessive Occupational Regulation. Excessive occupational regulation— most typically encountered as occupational licensing—creates underemployment

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on OSHA's voluntary protection program for workplace safety, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses independent contractor classification, joint employer definitions, overtime thresholds, and compliance‑assistance strategies. Both involve the Department of Labor and employer obligations, but their substantive policy areas differ significantly."

Key themes:Department of Laborworkplace regulationemployer complianceemployee protections

— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on occupational safety and health via OSHA's voluntary protection program, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses environmental regulations, greenhouse gases, and air permitting, with no substantive overlap."

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Harshbarger, Diana

Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act

119/hr/9339

Automotive National and Economic Security Act of 2026

119/hr/10158

MAIN Event Ticketing Act

119/hr/2713

Back to All Bills

Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act of 2025