ACPAC Modernization Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5663
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

ID: T000468

Follow the money

The bill

ACPAC Modernization Act

HR. 5663, 119th Congress — read as touching Airlines.

The sponsor

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

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

The money

$78,850 raised

27 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. 664-666 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

March 24, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ACPAC Modernization Act is a laughable attempt to rebrand a failed advisory committee as "modernized." The real purpose? To perpetuate the illusion that our elected officials care about consumer protection while lining their pockets with aviation industry bribes. It's like putting lipstick on a corpse – it's still dead, but now it looks slightly more presentable.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill "amends" Section 411 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 by adding "ticket agents" to the list of entities that must comply with consumer protection regulations. Wow, what a bold move! It's like they're trying to convince us that this minor tweak will somehow magically improve the flying experience for consumers. Newsflash: it won't.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: airlines, ticket agents, and other industry players who'll continue to exploit loopholes and ignore consumer complaints. Meanwhile, the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee will remain a toothless tiger, unable to effectively regulate the industry or protect consumers. And, of course, our intrepid lawmakers will reap the benefits of their "hard work" in the form of campaign contributions and lucrative lobbying gigs.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact? Zilch. Zero. Nada. This bill is a placebo, designed to make voters feel like something is being done while the aviation industry continues to run amok. The implications? More of the same: overpriced tickets, terrible customer service, and a complete disregard for consumer welfare. But hey, at least our politicians will have a shiny new law to point to when they're running for re-election.

In conclusion, HR 5663 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a cynical exercise in political posturing that will only serve to further enrich the aviation industry and its cronies in Congress. It's a disease, really: a chronic case of corruption, stupidity, and greed that's infecting our entire system of government. And we're the ones who keep electing these quacks to office. Bravo, America!

Related Topics

Healthcare & Insurance Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$78,850
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,850
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$5,800
2
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
3
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
4
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
1 transaction
$1,000
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
6
NET2LINK, LLC
1 transaction
$250

No committee contributions found

1
ALSOP, JOSEPH W
2 transactions
$6,600
2
BROWN, JAY H.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
CHANG, RONIE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
PRITZKER, JAY
1 transaction
$3,300
5
SCHMIDT, ERIC
1 transaction
$3,300
6
CASHMAN, MARYKAYE
1 transaction
$3,300
7
GREENSPUN, MYRA S
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HAAS, GENE
1 transaction
$3,300
9
KELLNER, PETER
1 transaction
$3,300
10
SANDBERG, SHERYL
1 transaction
$3,300
11
SCOTT, MARIE RAY
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SUSSMAN, S. DONALD S
1 transaction
$3,300
13
TRONE, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
JURVETSON, KARLA
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SAMUELSON, MARTHA S
1 transaction
$3,300
16
SAMUELSON, PAUL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
1 transaction
$3,300
18
BEKENSTEIN, JOSHUA
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

ID: B001257

Top Contributors

21

1
COOL MASTER PRO LLC
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,600
Mar 8, 2023
2
ARTECHE, LEON
V-ME MEDIA INC. • CFO
IndividualDORAL, FL
$5,000
Jan 18, 2024
3
OF FLORIDA, SEMINOLE TRIBE
EMPLOYEE RECOGNIZED TRIBE
IndividualHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 2, 2024
4
LAGOS, JAMES H.
LAGOS LAGOS, PLL • ATTORNEY
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, OH
$3,300
Sep 9, 2024
5
RICE, WILLIAM LLOYD
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL PARTNERS
IndividualMINT HILL, NC
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
6
WANEK, RON
ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
7
WANEK, TODD
ASHLEY FURNITURE • CEO
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
8
WANEK, JOYCE
N/A • N/A
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
9
WANEK, KAREN
SUPERIOR FRESH • OWNER
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
10
HEPSCHER, WILLIAM S
RX MANAGE USA • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]

ID: C001061

Top Contributors

22

1
BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$2,500
Jul 21, 2023
2
GRAHAM-ANDEBRHAN LLC
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$1,125
Jul 7, 2023
3
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES LTD. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Nov 20, 2024
4
EMERSON, BILL
ROCKET COMPANIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
5
RAYANT, GARRY
SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
6
RAYANT, GARRY
SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
7
HALL, DAVID
HALLMARK • EXECUTIVE
IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO
$3,300
Jan 25, 2024
8
HALL, DON JR.
HALLMARK CARDS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO
$3,300
Jan 25, 2024
9
LOVIER, HEATHER
ROCKET MORTGAGE • CHIEF CLIENT EXP. OFF.
IndividualROCKWOOD, MI
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
10
GRAY, JON
BLACKSTONE • PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
May 15, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 64 nodes and 70 connections

Total contributions: $70

Top Donors - Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Airlinesconfidence 0.90

    Section 2 modifies the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee to include ticket agents, which could improve consumer protections and benefit airlines by standardizing practices and potentially reducing disputes.

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: 59%
Pages: 664-666AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding membership of the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee to include ticket agents, which is a narrow consumer protection reform. Project 2025's DOT section emphasizes structural FAA reform, funding changes, technology modernization, and organizational separation—none of which are addressed in the bill."

Key themes:aviationDepartment of Transportationconsumer protection

— 632 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise not offer additional negotiations until the Chinese implement the agreements they have already signed. The current Administration’s policies in several areas that affect aviation and limit America’s future opportunities for growth are internally inconsistent. In addition to a New Entry Initiative, the new Administration should establish an interagency clearinghouse to drive consistent policies across the government on spectrum, drones, and advanced air mobility. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION With a budget of $18.6 billion requested for FY 202311 and an international regulatory footprint, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is DOT’s most visible mode. It needs reform. Air traffic control (ATC) operations account for two-thirds of FAA’s budget, and the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is far behind its counterparts in Australia, Canada, and Western Europe in implementing 21st century technology. The FAA’s primary mission is ATC; its two smaller functions are distributing federal airport grants and regulating all aspects of aviation safety. The FAA was once considered the world’s best government aviation agency. Those days are long past. In the more than five decades since 1958 when the Federal Aviation Agency (precursor to the Federal Aviation Administration) was formed, there have been notable developments in air traffic control technology, aircraft avionics, and engine reliability, but despite many well-intentioned attempts, there have been few changes in the FAA’s funding structure. The FAA is still improperly organized and financed, and the management reforms provided in the late 1990s remain largely unused. The FAA is 10 years older than DOT. It provides two separate and functionally different services: the world’s largest and most complex Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) and, at the same time, the world’s largest civil aviation regulatory and certificatory agency. The first is a 24/7/365 air traffic service provider. The second is an inherently governmental organization responsible for ensuring that aerospace operators, vehicles, airports, and ANSPs are properly certified and follow all FAA regulations. These two different organizations ought to run separately. The FAA is the only modern Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the world that does not assess fees for its services. Its funding structure, subject to the annual appropriations process, stifles efficiency and innovation—and the FAA does not innovate well. It spends too much time and money on research and development (R&D) and is not very good at either one. It should get out of the R&D business and focus on testing, evaluating, and certifying private-sector innovation much more quickly than it does today. The FAA workforce needs to modernize. The agency needs safety and certifi- cation experts, not professional airframe and powerplant mechanics (A&Ps). It — 633 — Department of Transportation needs to hire people trained to oversee mechanics, engineers, and pilots. It is time to consider promoting the FAA’s top executive team from within and requiring strict professional requirements for its top appointees. Organizations such as the FAA whose sole responsibility is public safety should be fully auditable and led by experts in their field or industry with oversight from DOT leadership. For 60 years, the FAA was the global leader in aerospace, from general aviation to commercial space, but the U.S. lead has vanished. The FAA’s overly bureaucratic, legalistic, byzantine, and more recently hyperpoliticized way of processing regu- lations, adopting innovation, publishing rules, and procuring new technologies has been eclipsed by foreign CAAs and ANSPs that are eagerly certifying drones and creating environments in which new technologies and new entrants, such as air taxis, can thrive. To regain America’s global leadership in aviation, the next Administration should: l Separate the FAA from DOT or, at a minimum, separate the ATO from the FAA. l Completely restructure the FAA’s funding system so that the nation’s aviation system is not held prisoner to annual appropriations or used as a political football to solve nonaviation problems. l Require the FAA to operate more like a business. The FAA has not made good use of the unique authority it has been given in areas like personnel and acquisition. In Europe, conventional control towers are being replaced by digital/remote towers with high-resolution cameras and other sensors on tall structures and at points adjoining runways. In Germany and Scandinavia, as many as 15 small air- ports can be controlled from one remote tower center. The FAA has yet to certify a single digital/remote tower. Text messaging between controllers and pilots is widespread over the oceans. The ATO began to implement what is now called DataComm in 2002 but sus- pended the project in 2003. This was restarted at airport control towers in 2016, but as of October 2022, it was available in only seven of the 20 high-altitude control centers. Current technology enables flights to be managed “anywhere from anywhere,” but the ATO resists consolidating its 20 aging centers into a much smaller number—and lacks the funds to consolidate them. The FAA as regulator and the ATO as traffic manager have no plans in place to handle millions of drones and other emerging technologies such as electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on aviation consumer protection via an advisory committee, while the Project 2025 excerpt concerns financial regulatory agencies and the CFPB's civil penalty fund. Both touch on consumer protection and regulatory oversight, but they operate in distinct sectors with little substantive overlap."

Key themes:consumer protectionregulatory advisory bodies

— 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023). — 845 — 28 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Brendan Carr MISSION STATEMENT The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communi- cations networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over inter- state and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.1 Five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for fixed five-year terms.2 The FCC does not have any other presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officials. Ordinarily, the five-member FCC is divided politically three to two with a majority of Commissioners from the same political party as the President. The Commissioners’ terms are staggered so that every year at the end of June, one Commissioner’s term expires.3 However, a Commissioner can continue to serve until the end of the next session of Congress (or up to 1.5 years beyond the expiration of the term) if no replacement is confirmed after his or her term ends.4 By law, only a bare majority of Commissioners can be from the same politi- cal party (no more than three when there are five members).5 By tradition, the Chairperson resigns when a new President of a different political party is sworn

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal
Vector: 60%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses aviation consumer protection advisory committee membership, whereas the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on environmental regulation, emissions standards, and limiting EPA authority; there is no substantive overlap in topics or objectives."

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills