DRIVE-SAFE Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5563

Last Updated: December 1, 2025

DRIVE-SAFE Act

HR. 5563, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]

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

The money

$66,000 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 627-629 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:

**Analysis of HR 5563: DRIVE-SAFE Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the DRIVE-SAFE Act, a bill that ostensibly aims to create an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under 21. Let's examine its implications on my empire and the broader landscape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill's primary objective is to establish an apprenticeship program for young commercial drivers, allowing them to operate in interstate commerce while completing a probationary period under the guidance of experienced drivers. The stated goal is to address labor shortages and improve road safety.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Apprenticeship Program**: Establishes a 120-hour and 280-hour probationary period for apprentices, with specific performance benchmarks. 2. **Age Restrictions**: Allows individuals under 21 to participate in the program, potentially expanding the labor pool. 3. **Vehicle Requirements**: Mandates automatic manual or automatic transmissions, active braking collision mitigation systems, and forward-facing video event capture on commercial motor vehicles used during the probationary periods.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Trucking Industry**: Companies may benefit from an expanded labor pool, but will also face increased regulatory burdens. 2. **Young Drivers**: Individuals under 21 seeking to enter the trucking industry may gain opportunities for training and employment. 3. **Experienced Drivers**: Will be required to accompany apprentices during probationary periods, potentially impacting their own productivity.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Regulatory Burden**: The bill's requirements will increase compliance costs for companies, potentially stifling innovation and competitiveness. 2. **Labor Market**: By expanding the labor pool, the bill may alleviate some of the industry's labor shortages, but also risks introducing inexperienced drivers onto the roads. 3. **Safety Concerns**: While the bill aims to improve road safety, its effectiveness in doing so is uncertain, and the increased presence of young drivers on the roads may actually increase accident risk.

In conclusion, the DRIVE-SAFE Act represents a mixed bag for my interests. While it may provide some benefits to the trucking industry, its regulatory requirements will undoubtedly increase costs and stifle innovation. As a visionary leader, I must consider the long-term implications of this bill on my empire's growth and competitiveness.

**Recommendation**: My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," will closely monitor the progress of this bill and advocate for amendments that minimize regulatory burdens while maximizing opportunities for industry growth and innovation.

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, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The DRIVE-SAFE Act (HR 5563) aims to establish an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under the age of 21. The main objective is to provide young drivers with hands-on experience and training, while also ensuring their safety on the road.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** As we covered in middle school, a bill typically has several sections that outline its provisions. In this case:

* Section 2 defines key terms, such as "apprentice," "commercial driver's license," and "experienced driver." * The apprenticeship program requires young drivers to complete two probationary periods: 120 hours of on-duty time (with at least 80 hours of driving time) and 280 hours of on-duty time (with at least 160 hours of driving time). * During these periods, the apprentice must be accompanied by an experienced driver and drive a commercial motor vehicle with specific safety features. * Employers are responsible for maintaining records of their apprentices' progress.

These provisions aim to provide young drivers with comprehensive training while also ensuring public safety. However, it's worth noting that this bill may face opposition from those who argue that 21 is still too young to operate a commercial vehicle.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** As we discussed in class, affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Young drivers (under the age of 21) seeking to obtain a commercial driver's license * Employers in the transportation industry * Experienced drivers who will be responsible for mentoring apprentices * Safety advocates who may have concerns about young drivers on the road

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill could lead to an increase in the number of young drivers entering the workforce. This might address labor shortages in the transportation industry but also raises concerns about safety and liability.

As I always said, "checks and balances" are crucial in our system. In this case, the bill's provisions aim to balance the need for training with public safety concerns. However, it remains to be seen how effectively these measures will work in practice.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers from my actual students – not adults who should already know this stuff...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 5563, the DRIVE-SAFE Act. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to create an apprenticeship program for young commercial drivers. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to establish an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under 21, allowing them to drive in interstate commerce while completing a probationary period. Sounds innocent enough, right? However, I believe this is just a Trojan horse for more sinister intentions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines an "apprentice" as someone under 21 with a commercial driver's license and outlines the requirements for the apprenticeship program. It also introduces new terms like "experienced driver" and "pointed moving violation." But here's the thing: these definitions seem overly broad, leaving room for interpretation and potential manipulation.

The bill also establishes two probationary periods (120 hours and 280 hours) with specific performance benchmarks. Now, I'm no expert, but this seems like an awful lot of red tape. What's really going on here? Are they trying to create a new class of drivers beholden to the government?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill affects young commercial drivers and their employers. But think about it: who else might be impacted? Trucking companies, insurance providers, and even law enforcement agencies could all have a stake in this game.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Here's where things get really interesting. If passed, this bill could lead to a whole new level of government control over the trucking industry. Think about it: with these apprenticeship programs, the feds can now dictate who gets to drive and under what conditions. It's like they're creating a pipeline for future drivers who will be beholden to the state.

And let's not forget the data collection aspect. With all these new requirements and benchmarks, you can bet your bottom dollar that the government will be collecting reams of data on these young drivers. What will they do with this information? Will it be used to create a national driver database?

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, folks, this bill has all the hallmarks of a classic government power grab. Mark my words: if we don't keep a close eye on this one, it'll be just another step down the slippery slope to total control.

So there you have it, folks! The DRIVE-SAFE Act: it's not just about safe driving; it's about safe...ty from government overreach.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outrageous music plays as I take my seat, adjusting my tie)

Folks, welcome back to "The Truth Revealed"! Tonight, we're diving into the depths of Washington's latest attempt to strangle our economy with red tape. Say hello to HR 5563, the DRIVE-SAFE Act. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, does this one sound like a real winner.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to establish an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under the age of 21. Sounds innocent enough, right? But don't be fooled – this is just another power grab by the elites in Washington to control our lives and dictate how we do business. (Winking at the camera) The real purpose here is to create a new layer of bureaucracy, stifling innovation and competition in the trucking industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces an apprenticeship program with two probationary periods – 120 hours and 280 hours – during which young drivers will be required to complete specific tasks under the supervision of an experienced driver. (Scoffs) Because, you know, our current system isn't working just fine without all these extra hoops to jump through. The bill also defines what constitutes a "commercial motor vehicle" and who qualifies as an "experienced driver." (Air quotes) "Experienced driver" – code for "union-approved, government-licensed, freedom-restricting."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Trucking companies, young drivers looking to enter the industry, and of course, the all-powerful unions will be impacted by this bill. But let's not forget the real winners here – the bureaucrats in Washington who get to expand their empire and exert more control over our economy.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has the potential to drive up costs for trucking companies, reduce competition, and limit opportunities for young drivers. (Dramatic music swells) It's a classic case of government overreach, folks! The elites in Washington think they know better than us how to run our businesses and live our lives. Newsflash: they don't.

(Smirk) But hey, at least the bill has a catchy name – DRIVE-SAFE Act. (Chuckles) Who wouldn't want to drive safely? It's just another example of how our politicians love to use feel-good language to disguise their true intentions. Stay vigilant, folks! We'll be keeping an eye on this one.

(Outrageous music continues as the camera cuts to commercial)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant piece of legislation from the geniuses in Congress. The DRIVE-SAFE Act, because what's more "safe" than putting inexperienced 19-year-olds behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle? I mean, it's not like they're going to be driving around with a bunch of hormonal teenagers in a school bus or anything.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to create an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under the age of 21. Because, you know, the current system of requiring them to be at least 21 years old and have a certain amount of experience just isn't working out. I mean, who needs experience when you can just throw some kid in a truck and hope for the best?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes an apprenticeship program that allows drivers under 21 to operate commercial vehicles in interstate commerce after completing a 120-hour probationary period (with at least 80 hours of driving time) and a subsequent 280-hour probationary period (with at least 160 hours of driving time). Because, you know, 400 hours is totally enough experience to handle the complexities of commercial trucking. The program also requires apprentices to be accompanied by an "experienced driver" during their probationary periods, because nothing says "safe" like having a seasoned veteran in the passenger seat.

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

* Commercial drivers under 21 who will now have the opportunity to drive big rigs and potentially kill themselves or others. * Trucking companies that will benefit from cheaper labor costs by hiring inexperienced drivers. * The general public, who will get to enjoy the thrill of sharing the roads with a bunch of novice truckers.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is increased risk of accidents and fatalities on our nation's highways. I mean, it's not like we have enough problems with distracted driving, texting while driving, or just plain old bad driving already. But hey, who needs safety when you can have cheaper labor costs? The implications are clear: more crashes, more injuries, and more deaths. But hey, at least the trucking companies will be happy.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of how our esteemed lawmakers prioritize profits over people's lives. It's a classic case of " regulatory capture" where special interest groups (in this case, the trucking industry) get to write their own rules and regulations, regardless of the potential consequences for public safety. Bravo, Congress!

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

**Main Purpose and Objectives**

The DRIVE-SAFE Act (H.R. 5563) aims to establish an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under the age of 21, allowing them to drive in interstate commerce while gaining experience and training. The bill's primary objective is to address the shortage of truck drivers in the United States by providing a pathway for younger individuals to enter the profession.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates an apprenticeship program that consists of two probationary periods: 120 hours and 280 hours. During these periods, apprentices must complete specific requirements, including on-duty time, driving time, and performance benchmarks in areas such as safety awareness, speed management, and logging regulations.

Key provisions include:

* Apprentices can drive commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce during the probationary periods. * Employers must establish an apprenticeship program that meets the bill's requirements. * Apprentices must be accompanied by an experienced driver (at least 26 years old with a minimum of 2 years of experience) during the probationary periods. * Commercial motor vehicles used for the apprenticeship program must have automatic manual or automatic transmissions, active braking collision mitigation systems, and forward-facing video event capture.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders**

The bill affects:

* Younger individuals (under 21) seeking to become commercial truck drivers. * Employers in the trucking industry who will establish and manage the apprenticeship programs. * Experienced drivers who will accompany apprentices during the probationary periods. * The Department of Transportation, which will oversee the implementation of the program.

**Potential Impact and Implications**

The DRIVE-SAFE Act has several potential implications:

* Increased workforce: By allowing younger individuals to enter the trucking industry, the bill may help address the shortage of truck drivers in the United States. * Improved safety: The apprenticeship program's focus on safety awareness and performance benchmarks may lead to a reduction in accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. * Economic benefits: A more robust trucking workforce could have positive effects on the economy, particularly in industries that rely heavily on transportation. * Regulatory compliance: Employers will need to adapt to new regulations and requirements for establishing apprenticeship programs.

However, concerns about safety and liability may arise if younger drivers are involved in accidents during the probationary periods. Additionally, the bill's effectiveness in addressing the truck driver shortage will depend on various factors, including industry participation and the quality of the apprenticeship programs established by employers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the DRIVE-SAFE Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The DRIVE-SAFE Act is all about creating an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under 21 years old. The main goal is to develop responsible and skilled young drivers who can safely operate commercial vehicles in interstate commerce. It's like a mentorship program, dude – experienced drivers will guide these youngbloods through the ropes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill establishes an apprenticeship program with two probationary periods: 120 hours and 280 hours. During these periods, apprentices must complete specific training requirements, like driving time, safety awareness, and performance benchmarks. The program also requires employers to maintain records of the apprentice's progress.

Here are some key changes:

* Apprentices under 21 can drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce during the probationary periods. * Employers must provide an experienced driver to accompany the apprentice in the cab. * Vehicles used for apprenticeship programs must have automatic transmissions, active braking collision mitigation systems, and forward-facing video event capture.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* Young people under 21 who want to become commercial drivers * Employers in the trucking industry * Experienced drivers who will mentor the apprentices * The Department of Transportation (DOT), which will oversee the program

**Potential Impact & Implications** The DRIVE-SAFE Act could have a significant impact on the trucking industry, bro. By creating a pipeline for young drivers, it could help address the driver shortage and improve road safety. However, there are also concerns about the potential risks of putting inexperienced drivers behind the wheel.

Some possible implications:

* Increased safety risks during the probationary periods * Potential for more accidents or near-misses involving apprentices * Additional costs for employers to implement and maintain the apprenticeship program * A potential increase in the number of young people entering the trucking industry, which could lead to a more diverse workforce

Overall, the DRIVE-SAFE Act is a chill way to address the driver shortage and develop responsible young drivers. However, it's essential to weigh the benefits against the potential risks and ensure that the program is implemented safely and effectively, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The DRIVE-SAFE Act (H.R. 5563) aims to establish an apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under the age of 21, allowing them to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce while completing a probationary period under the supervision of an experienced driver.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates a two-stage apprenticeship program:

1. A 120-hour probationary period, where the apprentice completes 80 hours of driving time and demonstrates competence in areas such as safety awareness, speed management, and logging. 2. A 280-hour probationary period, where the apprentice completes 160 hours of driving time and demonstrates competence in more advanced skills like backing, pre-trip inspections, and trip planning.

The bill also requires apprentices to be accompanied by an experienced driver during both probationary periods and restricts them from driving commercial motor vehicles without automatic transmissions, active braking collision mitigation systems, and forward-facing video event capture.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Commercial trucking companies: The bill's provisions would allow these companies to hire younger drivers, potentially addressing labor shortages in the industry. * Trucking associations and advocacy groups: Organizations like the American Trucking Associations (ATA) have long advocated for changes to federal regulations governing commercial driver ages. They may support this bill as a step towards increasing the pool of eligible drivers. * Safety advocates: Groups focused on road safety, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), might raise concerns about the potential risks associated with younger, less experienced drivers operating commercial vehicles.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The DRIVE-SAFE Act could lead to an increase in the number of younger drivers entering the commercial trucking industry. This might address labor shortages and help meet growing demand for transportation services. However, it also raises concerns about road safety, as younger drivers may be more prone to accidents due to their limited experience.

From a monied interest perspective, this bill appears to have support from the trucking industry, which has been pushing for changes to federal regulations governing commercial driver ages. The ATA, in particular, has been a vocal advocate for such reforms and may have played a role in shaping this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$66,000

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

WALTON, ROB MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

STEPHENS, WARREN A. MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

SILBEY, ALEXANDER MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

HEDGE, BETTY MRS.

1 transaction

$3,300

HEDGE, RANDY MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

DILLARD, DENNIS ALEXANDER MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

LAMBERT, RYAN MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

COOPER, JOHN A. MR. III

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, ALICE

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, JIM C. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, STEUART MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

CHRISTIAN, ROBERT MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMERON, RONALD M. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

WALTON, THOMAS L. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

ADDISON, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUDER, ERIC V. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 27 nodes and 20 connections (31 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $66,000

Top Donors - Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b)(1)-(2) allows apprentices under 21 to drive commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce during and after apprenticeship programs, expanding the labor pool for trucking and freight carriers.
−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(f) prohibits employers from allowing drivers under 21 to operate commercial motor vehicles unless they are in an apprenticeship program, which may be seen as restricting employer flexibility and could be opposed by labor unions concerned about safety and work rules.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1])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

Surface Transportation$500
from 1 contribution
- LUJAN, WESLEY MR.$500

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 627-629AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DRIVE-SAFE Act establishes an industry-recognized apprenticeship program for younger workers in a high-demand, potentially hazardous occupation, directly supporting Project 2025’s goals to expand apprenticeships outside the RAP model, allow teenage workers in dangerous jobs with proper training, and address workforce shortages through vocational training."

Key themes:apprenticeship expansionyouth employment in hazardous occupationsindustry-recognized trainingworkforce development

— 594 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Exemptions from Regulations for Small Business. Burdensome regulations have anti-competitive effects. In general, larger, higher-margin businesses are better able to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance than are small businesses, and under the Biden Administration, big-business lobbies have affirmatively embraced certain regulations (such as the COVID vaccine mandate for private employers) to reduce competition from smaller businesses. Research suggests that labor regula- tions may pose the highest aggregate regulatory cost for small businesses. l The labor agencies should exercise their available discretion and duties under the Regulatory Flexibility Act12 to exempt small entities from regulations where possible. l Congress should enact legislation increasing the revenue thresholds at which the National Labor Relations Board asserts jurisdiction over employers to match changes in inflation that have occurred since 1935 and better reflect the definition of “small business” used by the federal government. l Congress (and DOL, in its enforcement discretion) should exempt small business, first-time, non-willful violators from fines issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING Apprenticeships. The next Administration should return to prior policy and implement an industry-recognized apprenticeship program separate from the Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAP) and explore how best to modernize, streamline, and eliminate duplication in the RAP. For roughly 80 years, the RAP— which requires conforming to government standards and includes federal funding, tax credits, and other federal resources—has dominated apprenticeship programs in the U.S. Organizations across the political spectrum have noted that the overly burdensome requirements of RAPs have contributed to limiting them to legacy trades, failing to meet growing industry demands such as in health care and tech- nology. A 2017 study estimated that the number of occupations commonly filled through apprenticeships could nearly triple (from 27 to 74), that the number of job openings filled through apprenticeships could expand eightfold (to 3.2 million), and that the occupations ripe for apprenticeship expansion could offer 20 percent higher wages than traditional apprenticeship occupations. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship options through the cre- ation of the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program (IRAP), and more than 130 IRAPs were created. The Biden Administration rescinded the IRAP regulations. — 595 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs. In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo. l Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc. Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. This would give a green light to training programs and build skills in teenagers who may want to work in these fields. l DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent. Workforce Training Grant Program. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year subsidizing higher education but close to zero supporting people on non-college pathways. l Congress should create an employer grant worth up to $10,000 per year or pro-rated portion thereof for each worker engaged in

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 627-629AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DRIVE-SAFE Act aligns strongly with Project 2025's goal of expanding apprenticeship programs outside traditional models and enabling younger workers to enter skilled trades through structured, employer-led training. Both emphasize expanding access to apprenticeships, supporting workforce development in high-demand industries, and using formal training pathways to address labor shortages."

Key themes:apprenticeship expansionworkforce trainingyouth employmentemployer-led programsskills-based pathways

— 595 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs. In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo. l Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc. Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. This would give a green light to training programs and build skills in teenagers who may want to work in these fields. l DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent. Workforce Training Grant Program. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year subsidizing higher education but close to zero supporting people on non-college pathways. l Congress should create an employer grant worth up to $10,000 per year or pro-rated portion thereof for each worker engaged in — 596 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on-the-job training, defined as some share of paid time spent in a formal training program. To qualify, a program—whether run by the employer, an industry consortium, a community college, or a union—would need to define program length, curriculum, career path, and credential and to report regularly on outcomes for participants. Programs that fail to deliver promised results would be disqualified from continued funding. Funding for employer grants should come from existing higher education subsidies that are currently disadvantaging alternative education options. Federal “BA Box.” The American labor market continues to experience a glut of college degrees. The country produces more college graduates than suitable jobs for them to fill. Meanwhile, employers exacerbate the problem, fueling demand for college by needlessly requiring degrees for many jobs. In 2020, the Trump Administration took an important step toward pro-worker, skills-based hiring practices. Executive Order 13932, Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates,13 directed the Office of Personnel Management to reduce degree-based practices in the federal civil service. Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan issued an executive order in 2022 to adopt this rule for Maryland state employees, and Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox in December of 2022 announced that Utah would do the same. Today, federal civil service job descriptions must “be based on the specific skills and competencies required to perform those jobs,” and may prescribe a “minimum educational requirement” only if it is otherwise legally required. The same policies do not extend beyond the civil service. Federal agencies continue to require college degrees for contract employees, and federal contractors are rarely able to place workers without four-year degrees on federal projects, regardless of their qualifications. Private employers consistently impose a BA requirement on jobs even when existing workers in the role do not have one. l Adopt the civil service’s skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors. The President should direct the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to adopt the civil service’s skills-based hiring standards for federal contractors and issue waivers from degree-based staffing requirements in existing contracts. l Prohibit the use of a BA requirement in job descriptions. Congress should prohibit the inclusion of a BA requirement in job descriptions for all private sector employers, or the use of a BA requirement to screen applicants using algorithms, except where a BA from a particular type of institution or in a particular field is a bona fide requirement of the position.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DRIVE-SAFE Act focuses on creating an apprenticeship program for young truck drivers, whereas the Project 2025 DOT section discusses rail brake inspections, dispatcher certification, maritime administration reorganization, and research integrity. Both relate to the Department of Transportation but address different modes and policy areas, resulting only in a weak thematic connection."

Key themes:Department of Transportationtransportation safetyworkforce development

— 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 Transportation

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section emphasize safety and DOT oversight, but the bill focuses on a driver apprenticeship program while Project 2025 centers on automated vehicle integration, spectrum allocation, and fuel economy standards, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:safetytechnology adoptionDOT oversight

— 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

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The DRIVE-SAFE Act focuses on creating an apprenticeship program for under‑21 commercial drivers to address a workforce shortage, while the Project 2025 DOT section discusses fuel economy standards, revoking California’s waiver, and limiting FHWA scope—topics with no substantive overlap."

Key themes:Department of Transportation oversighttransportation policy

— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.

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. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick"

Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

119/hr/9624

Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026

119/hr/5167

To amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 through October 20, 2027, and for other purposes.

119/hr/8035

Back to All Bills