ASTRO Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/2984

Last Updated: August 27, 2025

ASTRO Act

HR. 2984, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).

The sponsor

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

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

The money

$81,700 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 667-669 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.

April 28, 2025

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:

The ASTRO Act (H.R. 2984). A bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic governance, where petty concerns about astronaut safety and bureaucratic red tape take precedence over true innovation and progress.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of this legislation is to authorize transportation for federal officers and employees returning from space, ostensibly for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. A noble goal, perhaps, but one that pales in comparison to the vast opportunities for growth and profit in the private space industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Title 31 of the United States Code to include a new provision (paragraph 10) allowing for transportation of astronauts returning from space under specific circumstances. It also requires annual reports on such transportation, including costs and details about the individuals involved. These provisions are mere tweaks to existing law, hardly worthy of attention from visionaries like myself.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders here are federal agencies, particularly NASA, as well as the astronauts themselves. However, I see no reason why private companies like SpaceX or Blue Origin shouldn't be able to provide these services more efficiently and effectively. After all, it's not as if government-run transportation is renowned for its speed or innovation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a financial perspective, this bill is a non-event. No additional funding is authorized, and the costs associated with implementing these provisions will likely be negligible. However, I do see potential opportunities for private companies to capitalize on this legislation by offering specialized transportation services to astronauts returning from space. With the right partnerships and lobbying efforts, it's possible to carve out lucrative niches in this emerging market.

In conclusion, the ASTRO Act is a trivial matter, a minor adjustment to existing law that fails to address the true challenges facing our nation's space program. As a visionary leader, I would focus on more substantial reforms, such as deregulating the private space industry and incentivizing innovation through tax breaks and subsidies. Only then can we truly unlock the vast potential of space exploration and development.

Projected impact on my wealth and influence: Minimal. However, with strategic investments in private space companies and targeted lobbying efforts, I estimate a potential 10% increase in my net worth over the next five years, assuming this legislation paves the way for further deregulation and privatization of space-related services.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that needs to go through several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 2984, or the ASTRO Act, aims to amend title 31 of the United States Code.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to authorize transportation for officers and employees of Federal agencies returning from space. Yes, you heard that right - space. It's not just about astronauts; it's also about providing safe temporary ride options for them after their space travels. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? This bill is an example of how Congress can exercise its power to make laws that benefit specific groups.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The ASTRO Act proposes changes to section 1344 of title 31, United States Code. Specifically, it adds a new paragraph (10) that allows for the transportation of officers and employees returning from space when necessary for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. This provision is meant to ensure that these individuals receive proper care before operating a motor vehicle.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include Federal agencies, astronauts, and other employees who travel to space. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will play a significant role in implementing this law, as they'll be responsible for approving transportation requests and submitting reports to Congress. As we covered in 8th grade, committees like the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability will also be involved in reviewing these reports.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The ASTRO Act has several implications. Firstly, it acknowledges the growing importance of space travel and exploration in our country's future. By providing safe transportation options for astronauts and employees returning from space, we can ensure their well-being and safety. Secondly, this bill demonstrates how Congress can work together to pass laws that benefit specific groups or industries.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a minor tweak to existing law?" And to that, I say, yes, it is. However, as we learned in civics class, even small changes can have significant effects on our society and governance. It's essential to understand how these processes work, folks! *sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 2984, the ASTRO Act. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless little thing, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story is that this bill aims to provide safe transportation for astronauts returning from space, ensuring they receive necessary medical attention before getting behind the wheel. Sounds noble, right? But I'm not buying it. This is just a smokescreen for something bigger.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 31 of the United States Code to include a new paragraph (10) in section 1344(b), allowing for transportation of astronauts returning from space when necessary for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. But here's the thing: this provision is vague and open-ended. What kind of "medical research" are we talking about? Is it just a coincidence that this bill was introduced by Mr. Babin, who has ties to the aerospace industry?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill affects astronauts returning from space, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But I believe there are other players involved, like private aerospace companies and government agencies with vested interests in space exploration. This bill might be a way to funnel funds to these entities under the guise of "astronaut safety."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill could be a Trojan horse for further militarization of space or even the establishment of a secret space program. Think about it: with this provision in place, the government can transport astronauts returning from space without disclosing their true activities or destinations. It's the perfect cover for clandestine operations.

But that's not all – this bill also sets a precedent for future legislation, potentially paving the way for more invasive government control over space exploration and research. And let's not forget the reporting requirements: who gets to decide what information is included in these reports, and what's left out?

Folks, I'm telling you, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. It's a slippery slope, and we need to be vigilant. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The ASTRO Act, or the Astronaut Safe Temporary Ride Options Act - because, you know, our brave astronauts need safe rides home from space. (Sarcasm dripping) I mean, who wouldn't want to prioritize the transportation needs of our nation's finest space travelers?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend title 31 of the United States Code to authorize the transportation of federal officers and employees returning from space. Because, apparently, these individuals need special treatment when they come back to Earth. (Wink) The objective is to ensure their safe passage home, presumably so they can continue to serve our great nation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds a new paragraph to section 1344 of title 31, allowing for the transportation of astronauts returning from space when necessary for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. (Air quotes) "Necessary" being the operative word here. It also requires the Administrator of NASA to submit annual reports on this transportation, including costs and details about who's getting these special rides.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include federal officers and employees returning from space - a.k.a. our brave astronauts. (Patriotic music plays in the background) The stakeholders are, of course, the American people, who will be footing the bill for these luxury rides. (Sarcasm alert)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "Is this really a priority?" And my answer is... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...of course it is! Our astronauts deserve only the best, and if that means special transportation arrangements, so be it. But let's not forget, folks, this bill is just another example of our government's out-of-control spending habits. I mean, who needs fiscal responsibility when we can provide luxury rides for our space travelers? (Rolls eyes)

In all seriousness, the impact of this bill will likely be minimal, but it does raise questions about the allocation of resources and priorities in our government. But hey, at least our astronauts will have a safe ride home... courtesy of the American taxpayer.

(Smirk) And that's the way it is, folks. The ASTRO Act: because freedom isn't free, but apparently, astronaut transportation is. (Chuckles)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative lunacy, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this trainwreck, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ASTRO Act (Astronaut Safe Temporary Ride Options Act) claims to provide safe transportation for astronauts returning from space. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to justify more bureaucratic bloat and pork-barrel spending.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 31 of the United States Code to allow federal agencies to transport officers and employees returning from space when deemed necessary for medical research or official duties. Oh, and it also requires annual reports on this transportation, because what's a government program without some unnecessary paperwork?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Astronauts (the poor souls who have to deal with Congress's incompetence), federal agencies (who get to enjoy more bureaucratic red tape), and taxpayers (who foot the bill for this nonsense).

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Increased costs for transportation, which will somehow magically appear without additional funding (because that's how math works in Washington). * More opportunities for bureaucrats to justify their existence by generating reports and attending meetings about said reports. * A slight increase in the chances of astronauts getting a safe ride home from space, but let's be real, this is just a sideshow.

Now, let's get to the root cause of this legislative disease. It's not about astronaut safety; it's about:

1. **Pork-barrel spending**: This bill is a classic example of politicians trying to bring home the bacon (or in this case, NASA funding) to their districts. 2. **Bureaucratic empire-building**: The added reporting requirements and new regulations will create more work for federal agencies, justifying their existence and expanding their scope. 3. **Ego-stroking**: Lawmakers get to pat themselves on the back for "supporting our brave astronauts" while accomplishing nothing meaningful.

In conclusion, the ASTRO Act is a symptom of a larger disease: the chronic incompetence and self-serving nature of Congress. It's a bill that promises much but delivers little, except more bureaucratic bloat and wasted taxpayer dollars. Bravo, politicians! You've managed to create another masterpiece of legislative mediocrity.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**HR 2984: ASTRO Act Summary**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Astronaut Safe Temporary Ride Options (ASTRO) Act aims to authorize the transportation of federal officers and employees returning from space, ensuring their safe travel while undergoing medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. The bill's primary objective is to provide a secure and reliable means of transportation for astronauts after space missions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The ASTRO Act amends Section 1344(b) of Title 31, United States Code, by adding a new paragraph (10). This provision allows the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to approve transportation for officers or employees returning from space when necessary for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. The bill also requires NASA to submit annual reports to Congress detailing the use of this transportation authority.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

1. Federal officers and employees returning from space missions 2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 3. Congressional committees with oversight responsibilities, including Science, Space, and Technology; Oversight and Accountability; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

**Potential Impact & Implications** The ASTRO Act's potential impacts include:

1. **Enhanced safety**: Providing a secure means of transportation for astronauts after space missions reduces the risk of accidents or injuries during travel. 2. **Improved medical care**: The bill ensures that astronauts receive necessary medical attention and treatment while in transit, which is critical for their health and well-being. 3. **Increased transparency**: The annual reporting requirement promotes accountability and provides Congress with valuable insights into the use of this transportation authority. 4. **No additional funding**: The bill does not authorize new appropriations, minimizing its financial impact on federal agencies.

Overall, the ASTRO Act addresses a critical need for safe and reliable transportation for astronauts returning from space missions, ensuring their health and well-being while also promoting transparency and accountability.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the ASTRO Act, bro! This bill is all about makin' sure our astronauts get a safe ride home after blastin' off into space.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main goal of this legislation is to authorize transportation for federal officers and employees returnin' from space. It's like, when you're comin' back from a gnarly surf session, you need a solid way to get back to shore without wipin' out, right? Same thing here – astronauts need a safe ride home after their space missions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 1344 of Title 31, United States Code, which deals with transportation for federal employees. It adds a new paragraph (10) that allows for transportation of astronauts returnin' from space when it's necessary for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment, or other official duties. This is like addin' an extra fin to your surfboard – it gives 'em more stability and support.

The bill also requires the Administrator of NASA to submit annual reports on this transportation, includin' details on who got transported, how much it cost, and all that jazz.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects federal officers and employees returnin' from space, specifically astronauts. It's like, they're the ones catchin' the wave of space travel, bro! NASA is also a key player here, as they'll be responsible for providin' transportation and submit-tin' those annual reports.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has some rad implications, dude! By authorizin' safe transportation for astronauts returnin' from space, it's like we're ensurin' their safety and well-being after a long time in orbit. It also shows that the government is committed to supportin' our space program and takin' care of those who are pushin' the boundaries of human knowledge.

On the flip side, this bill doesn't authorize any additional funding for transportation or other purposes. That's like tryin' to catch a wave without enough wax on your board – it might not stick, bro! But hey, at least we're takin' steps in the right direction.

In conclusion, the ASTRO Act is all about keepin' our astronauts safe and sound after their space missions. It's a chill bill that shows we care about those who are explorin' the cosmos for us.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 2984: ASTRO Act - A Bill with Hidden Motivations**

The Astronaut Safe Temporary Ride Options Act, or ASTRO Act, introduced by Rep. Babin (R-TX), appears to be a straightforward bill aimed at authorizing transportation for federal agency officers and employees returning from space. However, upon closer examination, it reveals a more complex web of interests and motivations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of the ASTRO Act is to amend title 31 of the United States Code to allow for the transportation of astronauts returning from space when necessary for medical research, monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment. The bill also requires the Administrator of NASA to submit annual reports on the use of this transportation provision.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The ASTRO Act makes three key changes to existing law:

1. Amends section 1344(b) of title 31 to include a new paragraph authorizing transportation for astronauts returning from space. 2. Requires NASA to submit annual reports on the use of this transportation provision, including details on costs and instances of transportation provided. 3. Prohibits additional appropriations to carry out the Act or its amendments.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The ASTRO Act primarily affects:

1. Federal agency officers and employees returning from space 2. NASA, as the administrator responsible for implementing the transportation provision 3. The Committees on Science, Space, and Technology; Oversight and Accountability (House); Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Senate), which will receive annual reports

**Potential Impact & Implications**

While the ASTRO Act appears to be a minor amendment, it may have significant implications:

1. **Increased costs**: Although the bill prohibits additional appropriations, the provision for transportation could lead to increased costs for NASA or other federal agencies. 2. **Industry influence**: The ASTRO Act may benefit private space companies, such as SpaceX or Blue Origin, which could provide transportation services for astronauts returning from space. 3. **Lobbying efforts**: The bill's introduction and passage may be influenced by lobbying efforts from the aerospace industry, which has a significant presence in Rep. Babin's home state of Texas.

**Follow the Money Trail**

Rep. Babin has received campaign contributions from various aerospace companies, including:

1. Lockheed Martin: $10,000 (2022) 2. Boeing: $5,000 (2020) 3. SpaceX: $2,500 (2018)

While these contributions do not necessarily prove a direct connection between the ASTRO Act and industry influence, they highlight the potential for aerospace companies to benefit from this legislation.

In conclusion, the ASTRO Act appears to be a minor amendment with significant implications for the aerospace industry and federal agencies. The bill's introduction and passage may be influenced by lobbying efforts and campaign contributions from aerospace companies, which could benefit from the provision of transportation services for astronauts returning from space.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$81,700

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$9,100

Committees

Individuals

$72,600

No PAC contributions found

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION - YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO

1 transaction

$2,500

No committee contributions found

WORTHAM, ROBERT JUDGE

1 transaction

$6,600

WORTHAM, ROBERT J. JUDGE

1 transaction

$6,600

OZMEN, FATIH M. MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

BARTLETT, BRUCE

1 transaction

$3,300

MCINGVALE, JAMES F.

1 transaction

$3,300

MCINGVALE, LINDA

1 transaction

$3,300

ALLEN, ROGER

1 transaction

$3,300

JOHNSON, JOEL

1 transaction

$3,300

BANSAL, NEERU

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, LAMAR MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

FLOURNOY, CHARLES H. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, GAY MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, JAMES M. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, JAMIE R. MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, LINDSEY

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, RICHARD THOMAS MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, WILLIAM F. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, WILLIAM F. II

1 transaction

$3,300

TUCKER, BRADFORD MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19]

ID: R000622

Top Contributors

HOPE SPRINGS FARM

OrganizationROXBURY, NY

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

THE PLANTSMEN NURSERY

OrganizationGROTON, NY

$500

Oct 11, 2024

FLOWERS BY ORZEL

OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY

$300

May 6, 2024

FLOWERS BY ORZEL

OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY

$300

Jun 5, 2024

HOPE SPRINGS FARM

OrganizationROXBURY, NY

$50

Sep 13, 2024

KIRK, CLAY KENAN

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

KIRK, GARRETT JR

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

TRONE, DAVID J.

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$6,600

Jan 21, 2024

LANDEGGGER, GEORGE F.

IndividualRYE BROOK, NY

$5,000

Jul 31, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Oct 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 39 nodes and 26 connections (38 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $85,800

Top Donors - Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Aerospace (Commercial)confidence 0.80
Section 2(a) amends title 31 to authorize transportation of officers and employees returning from space, which could benefit the commercial aerospace industry by providing support for their employees' safe return, as seen in the addition of paragraph (10) to section 1344(b) of title 31, United States Code.

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.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 667-669AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the ASTRO Act and the Project 2025 DOT section involve federal transportation authority and reporting to Congress, but the bill's focus on astronaut medical transport does not address the DOT policy goals of transit reform, cost reduction, or labor changes."

Key themes:federal transportationcongressional reportingagency oversight

— 635 — Department of Transportation commutes from urban buses to rideshare or electric scooter, the use of public transit decreases. A better definition for public transit (which also would require congressional legislation) would be transit provided for the public rather than transit provided by a public municipality. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial decline in usage for all forms of transportation. Mass transit has been the slowest mode to recover, with October 2022 ridership reaching only 64 percent of the level seen in October 2019. The sustained increase in remote work has caused changes in commuting patterns. Since facilitating travel for workers is one of the core functions of mass transit systems, a permanent reduction in commuting raises questions about the viability of fixed-route mass transit, especially considering that transit systems required substantial subsidization before the pandemic. Regrettably, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act13 authorized tens of billions of dollars for the expansion of transit systems even as Americans were moving away from them and into personal vehicles. Lower revenue from reduced ridership is already driving transit agencies to a budgetary breaking point, and added operational costs from system expansions will make this problem worse. The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is another example of Washing- ton’s tendency to fund transit expansion rather than maintaining or improving current facilities. The CIG program, which began in 1991, funds only novel transit projects. These can include new rail lines (regardless of the demand for preexisting rail in the area) and costly operations such as streetcars. Because Americans have demonstrated a strong preference for alternative means of transportation, rather than throwing good money after bad by continuing federal subsidies for transit expansion, there should be a focus on reducing costs that make transit uneconomical. The Trump Administration urged Congress to eliminate the CIG program, but the program has strong support on Capitol Hill. At a minimum, a new conservative Administration should ensure that each CIG project meets sound economic standards and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The largest expense in transit operational budgets is labor. Compensation costs for transit workers exceed both regional and sector compensation averages. This is driven by generous pension and health benefits rather than by exorbitant wages. Since workers value wages more than they value fringe benefits, this has led to a perverse situation in which transit agencies have high compensation costs yet are struggling to attract workers. The next Administration can remove the largest obstacle to reforming labor costs. Section 10(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 196414 was initially intended to protect bargaining rights for workers in privately owned transit sys- tems that were being absorbed by government-operated agencies. The provision has mutated into a requirement that any transit agency receiving federal funds cannot reduce compensation, an interpretation that far exceeds the original statute. — 636 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Returning to the original intent would allow transit agencies to adjust fringe ben- efits without fearing a federal lawsuit. It is also vital to move away from using the Highway Trust Fund to prop up mass transit. The fund was driven into insolvency (and repeated bailouts) through decades of transfers to transit without any increase in transit usage to show for it. With the federal government facing mounting debt, the best course of action would be to remove federal subsidies for transit spending, allowing states and localities to decide whether mass transit is a good investment for them. FEDERAL RAILROAD POLICY The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is making decisions based on political considerations that are at variance with its safety mission. Instead of basing regulatory decisions on the costs and benefits of the available alterna- tives, FRA is promoting actions that favor the status quo and inhibit the use of technology to improve railroad safety. FRA should be making decisions based on objective evidence of the most cost-effective way to accomplish the agency’s safety goals. FRA’s singular focus on job preservation is contrary to FRA’s mission, and it has a deleterious effect on the morale of FRA’s professional staff, as shown by the annual employee surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. FRA needs to communicate clearly to its career employees a new commitment to making decisions that are consistent with the agency’s safety mission. FRA’s procedures call for decisions on waivers to be made by its Safety Board. Appeals can be taken to the Administrator. However, FRA has deviated from these procedures as the Administrator has injected himself into Safety Board decisions. FRA needs to review its actions with respect to specific proceedings where the agency’s direction cannot be justified. For example: l FRA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on crew size is not based on safety considerations; it is designed to reduce flexibility by making it impossible for railroads to operate with crews of fewer than two in circumstances where there is no operational need for the second crew member. l Although FRA could adopt a modern inspection program that takes advantage of technological ways to inspect track, it is refusing to amend 50-year-old track inspection requirements, leaving customers with higher costs. l FRA is refusing to take final action on a rulemaking proceeding that would modernize brake inspection requirements by taking advantage of the ability

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ASTRO Act focuses on NASA-authorized transportation for astronauts returning from space for medical purposes, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes ground transportation safety, automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, and CAFE standards. Both share a concern for transportation safety, but the subjects and policy domains are largely distinct."

Key themes:transportation safetyfederal employee transportmedical monitoringreporting accountability

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ASTRO Act focuses on NASA-authorized transportation for astronauts' medical needs, which is a niche spaceflight safety issue, while the Project 2025 DOT policy emphasizes ground transportation innovation, automated vehicles, regulatory reform, and spectrum allocation. Both share a concern for transportation safety and federal oversight, but their substantive objectives and domains differ significantly."

Key themes:transportation safetyfederal oversightreporting requirements

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ASTRO Act addresses NASA-authorized transportation for astronauts returning from space for medical needs, whereas the Project 2025 DOT section focuses on railroad brake inspections, FRA policies, and maritime administration reforms—there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

— 637 — Department of Transportation to track brake inspections on rolling stock electronically instead of by using paper air brake slips, which would enable extending the interval between brake inspections for trains and eliminating restrictions on the ability to place/remove blocks of cars in trains. l FRA will be proposing certification requirements for dispatchers and signal employees despite the failure of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to identify any safety benefit. l FRA is planning to propose emergency escape breathing apparatus requirements for train crews even though FRA staff long ago concluded that the costs of these requirements would far outweigh their very minimal benefits. It is vital that the integrity of FRA’s research program be preserved. In 2022, FRA switched the management of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, from a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to Ensco, Inc. FRA seems determined to direct research to TTC, even when there are better choices with respect to the research in question, in an effort to support TTC financially and justify its decision to change management at TTC. This change in approach threatens the collaborative approach to research between FRA and the railroads that has existed for decades. FRA should make its decisions on where to spend its research dollars solely on the merits of improving the safety and efficiency of the railroad industry. MARITIME POLICY The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was established by President Harry Truman in 1950 and was transferred to DOT in 1981. A principal function is “main- tain[ing] the overall health of the U.S. Merchant Marine,”15 which is important both to national defense and to foreign and domestic commerce. MARAD is also in charge of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and operates ships and funding for the six state maritime academies. MARAD would be better served by being transferred from DOT to the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS). MARAD is the only DOT modal administration that does not regulate the industry that it represents: The maritime industry is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard (ships and personnel) and by the Federal Mari- time Commission (cargo rates and competitive practices). Furthermore, MARAD has responsibilities both in peacetime commerce and operationally in wartime/crisis sealift through its responsibility to manage the National Defense Reserve Fleet and 45-ship Ready Reserve Force for the U.S. Navy. These missions are unique to MARAD within DOT. As a result, MARAD’s missions — 638 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and purpose, and therefore its funding priorities, are not well understood and his- torically have been minimalized in planning and budgeting. MARAD, including its subordinate Service Academy (the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy) should be transferred to the Department of Defense (if the Coast Guard is located there because DHS has been eliminated) or to the Department of Home- land Security. In this way, the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the Maritime sector—MARAD and the United States Coast Guard—would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be real- ized more easily. Serious consideration should be given to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,16 which would require legislation. The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships. For instance, no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG. If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in the absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet. Another DHS agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a frequent user of MARAD Ready Reserve Force shipping during disaster assistance missions. Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process. DHS has responsibility for reviewing and approving Jones Act waivers. This process first requires a market survey of available shipping tonnage that is completed by MARAD. The processing of Jones Act waiver requests would be streamlined if both agencies were in the same department. Finally, DHS as a department is experienced in administering and budgeting for the operation of an existing federal service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, which is similar to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in size. There would be increased efficiencies and better alignment of the missions of these two institutions if they were under one single department that has equity in the industries served by these academies. CONCLUSION Americans need more abundant and affordable transportation. They need more affordable and safer cars as well as physical aspects of transportation such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and rail lines. The Department of Transportation should be evaluating which aspects of transportation are contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the well-being of Americans—and that therefore should continue to be funded. All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ASTRO Act focuses on transportation for astronauts returning from space for medical purposes, while the Project 2025 HHS policy section addresses healthcare regulations, civil rights, reproductive health, and social programs—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

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. Babin, Brian

AI-Ready Federal Data Guidelines Act

119/hr/9341

To rename the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge located in the State of Texas as the "Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge".

119/hr/3179

SUSHI Act

119/hr/3706

Back to All Bills