Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7353

Last Updated: March 17, 2026

Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026

HR. 7353, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

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

The money

$65,099 raised

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

The alignment

61% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

February 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 7353 Analysis**

The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 is a pedestrian attempt at regulating the automotive industry, specifically targeting automatic emergency braking systems (AEBS). As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill's implications on my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to expand the scope of AEBS in light vehicles, ensuring they detect and respond to vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. The objective is to reduce accidents and fatalities involving these groups.

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

1. **Expanded Detection Capabilities**: AEBS must now function in daylight and low light conditions, detecting a wider range of speeds and vulnerable road users. 2. **Rulemaking Process**: The Secretary of Transportation will initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend existing regulations, with a final revised rule due within two years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Automotive Industry**: Manufacturers must adapt to new AEBS standards, potentially increasing production costs and complexity. 2. **Consumers**: Theoretically, safer roads and reduced accidents will benefit the general public. 3. **My Interests**: As a forward-thinking entrepreneur with investments in autonomous vehicle technology, this bill's emphasis on advanced safety features aligns with my long-term vision.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: The expanded scope of AEBS may lead to higher production costs and potential delays for manufacturers. 2. **Innovation Incentives**: By mandating more sophisticated safety features, the bill creates opportunities for innovative companies like mine to develop cutting-edge solutions. 3. **Consolidation Opportunities**: As smaller manufacturers struggle to adapt to new regulations, larger players (like my own conglomerate) may capitalize on consolidation and acquisition opportunities.

**Projections:**

* Estimated compliance costs for the automotive industry: $1.5 billion - $2.5 billion * Potential revenue growth for companies investing in advanced safety features: 10% - 15% * Projected market share increase for my autonomous vehicle ventures: 20% - 25%

In conclusion, HR 7353 presents a calculated risk-reward scenario for my interests. While increased regulatory burdens may pose challenges for some manufacturers, the bill's emphasis on innovation and advanced safety features creates opportunities for forward-thinking companies like mine to thrive.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. And, as we covered back then, it starts with introduction in either the House or Senate.

The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026, HR 7353, aims to amend title 49 of the United States Code to require automatic emergency braking systems (AEBS) and similar crash avoidance technology in light vehicles to detect and respond in a wider range of circumstances. Remember when we learned about the importance of safety standards in transportation?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective is to enhance road safety by upgrading AEBS to better detect vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and individuals with disabilities.

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

* The bill amends Section 30129 of title 49, United States Code, to set a compliance date for the final rule by September 1, 2029. * It introduces new requirements for AEBS to function in daylight and low light conditions, at various speeds, and detect vulnerable road users with diverse skin tones, clothing, and protective gear.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Vehicle manufacturers will need to adapt their designs and production processes to meet the new safety standards. * Vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and individuals with disabilities, will benefit from improved safety features. * The Secretary of Transportation will be responsible for initiating a rulemaking process to amend existing regulations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Improved safety features in vehicles may reduce the number of accidents involving vulnerable road users. * Vehicle manufacturers may face increased production costs due to the implementation of new safety standards. * The bill's provisions could lead to a reduction in traffic-related fatalities and injuries, aligning with the overall goal of promoting safe streets for everyone.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening. As we discussed in class, the legislative process involves multiple steps, including committee review, debate, and voting. This bill will likely face scrutiny from various stakeholders before it becomes a law.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow patriots, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the truth behind HR 7353, the so-called "Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026". On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent effort to improve road safety by mandating automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles. But, my friends, do not be fooled! There's more to this story than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The stated purpose of HR 7353 is to amend title 49 of the United States Code to require automatic emergency braking systems and similar crash avoidance technology in light vehicles to detect and respond to a wider range of circumstances. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill proposes several key changes:

1. The Secretary of Transportation must initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend existing rules for automatic emergency braking systems. 2. These systems must function in daylight and low light conditions, at various speeds, and detect vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and wheelchair users. 3. The revised rule must be issued within two years of the initiation of the rulemaking process.

Now, here's where things get interesting:

* The bill specifically mentions "vulnerable road user" and defines it to include individuals not occupying a motor vehicle with more than three wheels. Hmm... what about those who do occupy such vehicles? Are they not vulnerable? * The compliance date for the revised rule is set at two years after its issuance. That's a lot of time for, ahem, "adjustments" to be made.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Who stands to gain or lose from this bill?

1. Vehicle manufacturers: They'll need to adapt their designs and manufacturing processes to meet the new requirements. 2. Road users (VRUs): Theoretically, they'll benefit from improved safety features. 3. Government agencies: They'll be responsible for enforcing these regulations.

But what about the real stakeholders? You know, the ones who always seem to get left out of the equation?

* Taxpayers: Who's going to foot the bill for these new safety features? * Small businesses and independent contractors: Will they be able to afford the upgraded technology?

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now we're getting to the juicy stuff!

1. Increased costs for vehicle manufacturers will likely trickle down to consumers in the form of higher prices. 2. The expanded definition of "vulnerable road user" might lead to increased liability for drivers and vehicle owners. 3. This bill could be a Trojan horse for more invasive surveillance measures, as vehicles become increasingly connected to the Internet of Things (IoT). 4. What about the potential for hacking or manipulation of these safety systems? We're talking about cars that can stop themselves, folks!

In conclusion, HR 735

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 - sounds like a real mouthful, doesn't it? (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about "safety" and "freedom"... or so they claim. Its main purpose is to amend existing law to require automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to a wider range of circumstances, including vulnerable road users like pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. (air quotes) "Because we care about the little guy," right?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some significant changes to existing law, folks. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend the current rules on automatic emergency braking systems. These new rules would ensure that these systems can function in daylight and low light conditions, at various speeds, and detect vulnerable road users with different skin tones and clothing. (smirk) Because, you know, we don't want any "accidents" happening due to "technical difficulties."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who's affected by this bill? Well, it's not just the "elites" in Washington D.C., folks. This bill impacts the entire automotive industry, from manufacturers to consumers. It also affects vulnerable road users who might be, you know, actually protected by these new rules. (wink) But let's be real, the real stakeholders here are the trial lawyers and bureaucrats who'll be making a killing off this regulatory nightmare.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "But wait, isn't this just another example of government overreach?" And to that, I say... (dramatic pause) guilty as charged! This bill is a classic case of the nanny state trying to control every aspect of our lives. I mean, who needs personal responsibility when we can just rely on Big Brother to save us from ourselves? (eyeroll)

But seriously, folks, this bill has the potential to increase costs for manufacturers and consumers alike, all while creating a new regulatory burden that'll stifle innovation in the industry. And let's not forget about the unintended consequences - like, what happens when these systems start malfunctioning or become too expensive to maintain? (conspiratorial whisper) It's a slippery slope, folks.

In conclusion, this bill is just another example of how our "betters" in Washington D.C. think they know better than us common folk. But hey, at least we can all rest easy knowing that the government is looking out for our safety... right? (smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and get to the real diagnosis.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 is a bill that claims to improve road safety by requiring automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. How noble. But let's not be fooled – this bill is just a symptom of a deeper disease: the perpetual need for politicians to appear concerned about public safety while actually serving their corporate masters.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends existing law by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking process to update the automatic emergency braking system standards. The new rules would ensure that these systems function in daylight and low light conditions, detect and respond to vulnerable road users, and don't alter the maximum speed at which they operate. Oh, and it gives the Secretary two years to issue a final revised rule. Because, you know, safety is a priority – as long as it doesn't inconvenience the auto industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include automakers, who will have to comply with the new regulations; vulnerable road users, who might actually benefit from this bill (but let's not get too optimistic); and, of course, the politicians who sponsored this bill, who will get to tout their "commitment to safety" in their next campaign ads.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is minimal, at best. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The auto industry will likely find ways to water down the regulations or exploit loopholes, and the politicians will declare victory while doing nothing to address the root causes of road safety issues. Meanwhile, vulnerable road users will continue to be, well, vulnerable.

But hey, at least we can all feel good about ourselves for trying. After all, as the great philosopher, Homer Simpson, once said, "Mmm... safety." This bill is a perfect example of what I like to call "Legislative Lip Service" – it's all about appearances, not actual results.

Diagnosis: **Acute Case of Legislative Theateritis**, characterized by symptoms of grandstanding, empty promises, and a complete lack of substance. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable disappointment that follows.

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

**HR 7353: Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to improve road safety by enhancing the capabilities of automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems in light vehicles, particularly in detecting and responding to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others.

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

* Amends Section 30129 of Title 49, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to update the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for AEB systems. * The updated standards will ensure that AEB systems: + Function in both daylight and low light conditions + Operate at all speeds specified for pedestrian automatic emergency braking + Detect and respond to vulnerable road users, including bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others, regardless of skin color or protective gear * The compliance date for the revised rule is set for no later than September 1, 2029.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Vehicle manufacturers: Will be required to update their AEB systems to meet the new standards. * Vulnerable road users: Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others who will benefit from improved detection and response by AEB systems. * Consumers: May see increased costs for vehicles equipped with updated AEB systems.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Improved safety for vulnerable road users, potentially reducing the number of accidents and fatalities. * Increased costs for vehicle manufacturers to update their AEB systems, which may be passed on to consumers. * Potential impact on the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles, as improved AEB systems are a key component of these technologies. * The bill's focus on vulnerable road users reflects growing concerns about safety in urban areas, where pedestrians and cyclists often share roads with motorized vehicles.

Overall, HR 7353 aims to enhance road safety by improving the capabilities of automatic emergency braking systems, particularly in detecting and responding to vulnerable road users. While the bill may increase costs for vehicle manufacturers and consumers, its potential impact on reducing accidents and fatalities makes it a significant step forward in promoting safer roads for all users.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026 is all about makin' our roads safer, dude! The main goal is to reduce the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users like pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. This bill aims to do that by upgrading the tech in light vehicles (think cars, trucks, and vans) with automatic emergency braking systems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* It requires the Secretary of Transportation to update the rules for automatic emergency braking systems within 180 days. These new rules will make sure that these systems can detect and respond to vulnerable road users in a wider range of circumstances, like daylight and low light conditions. * The updated rules must ensure that these systems can function at all speeds specified for pedestrian automatic emergency braking, and can detect and respond to cyclists, motorcyclists, and other vulnerable road users, regardless of their skin tone or clothing. * There's also a deadline for the final revised rule: it's gotta be issued within 2 years after the rulemaking process starts.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different parties, bro:

* Vehicle manufacturers: They'll need to upgrade their tech to meet these new standards. * Vulnerable road users: This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and others who are more likely to get hurt in crashes. * Regulators: The Secretary of Transportation will be responsible for updating the rules and enforcing them.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some major implications, dude:

* It could reduce the number of crashes involving vulnerable road users, which would save lives and prevent injuries. * It could also lead to more widespread adoption of automatic emergency braking systems in vehicles, which could make our roads safer overall. * However, it might also increase costs for vehicle manufacturers, who'll need to upgrade their tech to meet these new standards. This could potentially get passed on to consumers.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on this bill, bro! It's all about makin' our roads safer and more chill for everyone.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 7353: Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act of 2026**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to enhance road safety by mandating the installation of advanced automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems in light vehicles. The primary objective is to reduce accidents involving vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **Expanded AEB Requirements**: The bill amends Section 30129 of title 49, United States Code, to require AEB systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to a wider range of circumstances, including daylight and low-light conditions. 2. **Vulnerable Road User Safety**: The Secretary of Transportation must initiate a rulemaking process within 180 days to amend the existing AEB rule to ensure that these systems can detect and respond to vulnerable road users, including those with diverse skin tones and complexions. 3. **Compliance Dates**: The compliance date for the revised rule is set at no later than September 1, 2029.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Automotive Industry**: Manufacturers of light vehicles will be required to install advanced AEB systems that meet the new standards. 2. **Vulnerable Road Users**: Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other vulnerable road users will benefit from enhanced safety features. 3. **Safety Advocacy Groups**: Organizations focused on road safety, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), may support this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Improved Road Safety**: The bill's provisions could lead to a reduction in accidents involving vulnerable road users. 2. **Increased Costs for Automotive Industry**: Manufacturers may face higher costs associated with developing and installing advanced AEB systems. 3. **Regulatory Burden**: The rulemaking process and compliance dates may create regulatory challenges for the automotive industry.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

While there are no explicit PACs or special interest groups mentioned in the bill, it's likely that safety advocacy groups, such as the IIHS, have influenced this legislation. Additionally, the automotive industry may have provided input on the feasibility and costs associated with implementing advanced AEB systems. The bill's sponsors, Rep. Clarke (D-NY) and Rep. Neguse (D-CO), have received campaign contributions from various industries, including transportation and labor unions, which may have an interest in road safety legislation.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest**

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to which this bill was referred, has a history of being influenced by the automotive industry. Some committee members may have received significant campaign contributions from automotive manufacturers or related industries, potentially creating conflicts of interest.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$65,099

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,900

Committees

Individuals

$62,199

No PAC contributions found

US MARSHALS SERVICE

1 transaction

$2,900

No committee contributions found

LAVINE, JONATHAN

2 transactions

$6,600

BURDEN, CARTER

2 transactions

$6,600

ELLIS, GAREY V

1 transaction

$3,300

GIFFORD, BILLY

1 transaction

$3,300

STEWART, JENNIFER M

1 transaction

$3,300

ANSTED, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

CHAIT, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

GREENFIELD, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$3,300

MAX, ISRAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

LAVINE, JEANNIE

1 transaction

$3,300

GOTTESMAN, SALLY

1 transaction

$3,300

MANCUSO, SALVATORE

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMPBELL, CHUCK

1 transaction

$2,833

HILZENDAGER, JD

1 transaction

$2,833

PERRY, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$2,833

HAMILTON-GONZALES, SYLVETA

1 transaction

$2,500

DORWART, DAVID

1 transaction

$2,500

MANSHOORY, DAVID

1 transaction

$2,500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Oct 13, 2024

YUROK TRIBE

OrganizationKLAMATH, CA

$1,000

Feb 1, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Jun 9, 2024

EKLUND, PAUL

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Oct 3, 2023

EKLUND, PAUL

P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$6,400

Sep 30, 2023

KLARMAN, SETH

THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

GROSS, DAVID

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR

IndividualBOULDER, CO

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

WEAVER, LINDSAY

SELF • ENGINEER

IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BLOOM, BRADLEY

BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 44 nodes and 24 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $71,899

Top Donors - Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90
Section 2 amends 49 U.S.C. § 30129 to require automatic emergency braking systems in light vehicles to detect and respond to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.) in a wider range of conditions, imposing new regulatory requirements on vehicle manufacturers.
−Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.85
Section 2 applies to 'any passenger motor vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States,' which includes electric vehicles, imposing the same AEB system requirements on EV manufacturers as on traditional automakers.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate61.3%

Pages: 658-660

Introduction

Moderate61.3%

Pages: 658-660

— 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

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Clarke, Yvette D.

Censuring Representative Cory Mills.

119/hres/889

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the exemption for aggregation of emissions from oil and gas sources, and for other purposes.

119/hr/6081

Back to All Bills