International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4341

Last Updated: December 1, 2025

International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act of 2025

HR. 4341, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

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

The money

$70,500 raised

22 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. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House 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 International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act of 2025 (HR 4341). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a well-intentioned effort to reduce maritime pollution. But let's not be naive – this is Washington, after all.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to hold shipping and other vessels accountable for their environmental impact by assessing fees on certain voyages. The primary objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the marine shipping industry, which currently accounts for nearly 3% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Fees**: The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will assess fees on covered voyages, defined as those made by self-propelled vessels with a gross tonnage of 5,000 or more, transporting cargo or freight. 2. **Definitions**: The bill establishes definitions for terms like "covered voyage," "criteria air pollutant," and "exclusive economic zone." 3. **Exceptions**: Certain voyages are exempt from the fee assessment, including those made for military cargo, food aid, disaster relief, and Jones Act vessels.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill include:

1. **Shipping companies**: Those operating self-propelled vessels with a gross tonnage of 5,000 or more will be subject to fee assessments. 2. **Importers**: Companies importing goods into the United States may see increased costs due to the fees assessed on covered voyages. 3. **Environmental groups**: Organizations advocating for reduced maritime pollution may view this bill as a step in the right direction.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From my perspective, this bill has several implications:

1. **Increased costs**: Shipping companies and importers will likely pass on the additional fees to consumers, potentially leading to higher prices. 2. **Regulatory burden**: The EPA will need to establish a new fee assessment system, which may lead to increased regulatory complexity and bureaucratic overhead. 3. **Competitive disadvantage**: U.S.-based shipping companies may face a competitive disadvantage compared to international competitors not subject to these fees.

As a self-interested billionaire, I must consider how this bill affects my own business interests. The potential increase in costs and regulatory burden could negatively impact my investments in the shipping industry. However, if properly managed, this bill could also present opportunities for consolidation and market share growth among more efficient operators.

In conclusion, while HR 4341 may appear to be a well-intentioned effort to reduce maritime pollution, its implications are far-reaching and complex. As always, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and adjust my business strategies accordingly to maximize returns on investment.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$70,500

21 donors

PACs

$2,500

Organizations

$2,000

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

1 transaction

$2,500

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

No committee contributions found

HALE, KAREN

2 transactions

$6,600

KINNEY, MARY

1 transaction

$3,300

KONG, MINDY

1 transaction

$3,300

TSAKOPOULOS, KATINA

1 transaction

$3,300

TSAKOPOULOS, SOFIA

1 transaction

$3,300

VISMARA, LOUIS A.

1 transaction

$3,300

WAGNER, BELAN KIRK

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLEY, LARRY D.

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, MARK L.

1 transaction

$3,300

SYPHAX, CELESTINE

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, MARJORIE SOLOMON

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, JOHN M.

1 transaction

$3,300

SANT, ROGER W.

1 transaction

$3,300

KONG, CLEMENT J.

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUNNER, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

FRIEDMAN, MARCINE

1 transaction

$3,300

HALE, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

THOMAS, TINA

1 transaction

$3,300

SMIRA, MICHELLE

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 42 nodes and 22 connections (43 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $70,500

Top Donors - Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 2 harmed.

−Surface Transportationconfidence 0.90
The bill imposes fees on shipping and other vessels (covered voyages) based on lifecycle CO2-e emissions and criteria air pollutants, which directly affects surface transportation industries such as freight shipping, trucking, and logistics that rely on maritime transport for cargo movement. Sections 5 and 6 assess fees on operators of covered voyages, which include vessels transporting cargo or freight, thereby increasing costs for surface transportation entities involved in global supply chain
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.85
The bill assesses fees on fuel consumed by vessels within the exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, and internal waters of the United States (Sections 5(b)(2)(A)(i) and 6(b)(2)(A)(i)-(iii)), which directly impacts energy infrastructure industries such as oil and gas pipelines, LNG export terminals, and midstream operators that supply marine fuels. These entities may face reduced demand or increased regulatory burden due to fees on fuel consumption.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.75
Section 7(a)(2) allocates 25% of collected fees to the Maritime Administration for grants, rebates, and low-interest loans to replace or retrofit Jones Act vessels with zero-emission technologies, including battery propulsion. This could increase demand for electricity to charge batteries, benefiting electric utilities through increased load and potential grid infrastructure investments.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.65
Section 7(d) and 7(e) fund grants for replacing or retrofitting harbor craft and ferry vessels with battery-powered propulsion, which may involve construction and engineering firms involved in shipbuilding, port infrastructure upgrades, and electrical system installations for zero-emission vessels.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Electric Utilities$1,000
from 2 contributions
- MCINTYRE, YVONNE$1,000

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: 67%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from maritime shipping through a fee system, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of addressing climate change via emissions regulation, though it does not directly reference or implement specific Project 2025 proposals like updating the endangerment finding or establishing a significant emissions rate for GHGs."

Key themes:greenhouse gas emissionsclimate change regulationenvironmental accountabilityemissions reduction

— 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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on maritime pollution fees and emissions reduction, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes Clean Water Act reforms, WOTUS definitions, and regulatory streamlining—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general environmental regulation."

Key themes:Environmental Protection Agencyregulatory reformwater quality

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on imposing fees on maritime vessels to reduce emissions, while Project 2025's EPA section emphasizes cost realism, regulatory reform, and limiting federal overreach—particularly in vehicle and air permitting standards. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address cost assessments, state flexibility, or regulatory rollbacks central to Project 2025."

Key themes:emissions reductionenvironmental regulationair quality

— 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. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section concern transportation-related emissions, but the bill proposes regulatory fees to cut maritime pollution while Project 2025 opposes similar regulatory approaches (e.g., stricter CAFE standards) in the automotive sector, resulting in only weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:transportation emissionsregulatory feesenvironmental policy

— 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 — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill imposes fees on vessels to reduce emissions, which increases costs and conflicts with Project 2025's goal of making transportation easier and less expensive; while both address maritime issues, their objectives diverge significantly, particularly regarding Jones Act reform and cost burdens."

Key themes:maritime regulationJones Actvessel feescost impact

— 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 — 639 — Department of Transportation renewables. These goals are not compatible with what should be DOT’s purpose: to make travel easier and less expensive. That is what the American people want, and that is what DOT should provide. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Steven Bradbury, David Ditch, and Robert Poole deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

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. Matsui, Doris O.

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025

119/hr/2140

Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act

119/hr/952

FUTURE Networks Act

119/hr/2449

International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act of 2025