ALERT Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7613

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

ALERT Act

HR. 7613, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).

The sponsor

Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

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

The money

$215,569 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" 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

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

April 14, 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

Summary Style:

The ALERT Act (HR 7613) is a congressional bill that aims to improve aviation safety by mandating the use of collision prevention technology in certain aircraft, enhancing air traffic control processes, and addressing national airspace system safety concerns. As a self-serving billionaire, I will analyze this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the ALERT Act is to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions by requiring aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In. This technology provides pilots with situational awareness of surrounding traffic and issues alerts in case of potential collisions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions, including:

1. Mandatory installation of collision prevention technology in certain aircraft. 2. Enhancements to air traffic control processes, such as improved controller training and the use of safety risk assessment tools. 3. Updates to helicopter route safety and separation around airports.

These changes will likely lead to increased costs for airlines and aircraft operators, which could result in higher prices for consumers. However, this may also create opportunities for companies that specialize in collision prevention technology, potentially leading to new investment opportunities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The ALERT Act will impact various stakeholders, including:

1. Airlines and aircraft operators, who will need to invest in collision prevention technology. 2. Air traffic controllers, who will require additional training and resources to implement the new safety procedures. 3. Passengers, who may face higher prices due to increased costs for airlines.

As a billionaire with significant investments in the aviation industry, I will be closely monitoring the implementation of this bill and its potential impact on my portfolio.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The ALERT Act has several implications for my wealth and influence:

1. **Increased costs:** The mandatory installation of collision prevention technology may lead to higher costs for airlines and aircraft operators, potentially reducing their profit margins. 2. **New investment opportunities:** The growth of the collision prevention technology market could create new investment opportunities for companies that specialize in this area. 3. **Regulatory hurdles:** The bill's emphasis on safety regulations may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny, which could hinder innovation and limit the potential for disruption in the aviation industry.

In conclusion, the ALERT Act has significant implications for my wealth and influence, particularly in terms of its potential impact on the aviation industry and the growth of the collision prevention technology market. As a self-serving billionaire, I will continue to monitor the implementation of this bill and explore opportunities to leverage its provisions to further my interests.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process involves introducing a bill, referring it to committee, and then debating and voting on it. The ALERT Act, HR 7613, is a perfect example of this process in action. Remember when we learned about how bills become laws? This one follows that same path.

The main purpose of the ALERT Act is to improve aviation safety by requiring certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, enhancing helicopter route safety and separation around airports, and updating air traffic control processes and procedures. As we covered in 8th grade, a bill's title and table of contents provide a clear outline of its objectives. In this case, the ALERT Act aims to address national airspace system safety, particularly in Department of Defense activities.

Key provisions of the bill include requiring airborne collision avoidance systems for rotorcraft, upgrading air traffic control facilities, and establishing a working group to evaluate shared frequency around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. These changes will affect existing law by repealing prior provisions related to manned rotary wing aircraft safety and updating regulations on Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology. As I'm sure you recall from middle school, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate will be instrumental in reviewing and refining this bill.

The affected parties and stakeholders include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), aircraft manufacturers, airlines, pilots, and passengers. Remember when we discussed the importance of checks and balances? This bill is a prime example of how different branches of government work together to ensure safety and accountability. The FAA will need to implement new regulations and guidelines, while airlines and aircraft manufacturers will have to adapt to the new requirements.

The potential impact and implications of the ALERT Act are significant. By improving aviation safety, the bill could reduce the risk of mid-air collisions and enhance overall air travel security. However, implementing these changes may require significant investments in technology and training, which could lead to increased costs for airlines and aircraft manufacturers. As we learned in 8th grade civics, the legislative process is designed to balance competing interests and priorities. In this case, the ALERT Act seeks to strike a balance between safety concerns and economic considerations.

In conclusion, the ALERT Act is a comprehensive bill that aims to improve aviation safety through various measures. By understanding how this bill becomes a law, we can appreciate the complexities of the legislative process and the importance of civic engagement. As I always say, "a well-informed citizenry is essential to a functioning democracy." Now, if only you had paid attention in 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The ALERT Act - just another bill, or is it? Let me decode the secrets hidden within. As I delve into the details, I'll connect the dots and reveal the true intentions behind this seemingly innocuous legislation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, the ALERT Act aims to improve aviation safety by mandating collision prevention technology in certain aircraft, enhancing helicopter route safety around airports, and updating air traffic control processes. But, my friends, don't be fooled - there's more to it than meets the eye. The bill's true purpose is to expand government surveillance and control over our skies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 101, for instance, requires airborne collision avoidance systems in certain aircraft, which sounds like a noble pursuit of safety. However, this provision also paves the way for increased data collection on flight patterns and passenger information. The bill's emphasis on "ADS-B In" technology (Section 2) is particularly intriguing, as it enables real-time tracking of aircraft - a feature that could be exploited by government agencies to monitor our every move.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The ALERT Act affects not only the aviation industry but also the Department of Defense, which has its own set of provisions (Title II). This raises questions about the military's involvement in civilian air traffic control and the potential for covert operations. Furthermore, the bill's impact on emergency responders, airlines, and passengers is significant, as it introduces new regulations and reporting requirements that could lead to increased costs and bureaucratic red tape.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The ALERT Act has far-reaching implications for our civil liberties and national security. By expanding government control over aviation, we risk eroding our right to privacy and freedom of movement. The bill's emphasis on "safety" and "security" may be nothing more than a smokescreen for a larger agenda - one that prioritizes state power over individual rights. As I see it, the ALERT Act is just another piece in the puzzle of government surveillance and control.

Now, my friends, don't just take my word for it - read between the lines, connect the dots, and decide for yourself: what's really going on here? Is this bill a genuine attempt to improve aviation safety, or is it something more sinister? The truth, as always, lies in the details.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh boy, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the ALERT Act, because who doesn't love a good acronym? (wink) This behemoth of a bill is all about "improving" aviation safety, because, you know, freedom isn't free... unless you're talking about the freedom to crash into each other in mid-air. (chuckles)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ALERT Act's primary objective is to prevent those pesky mid-air collisions by requiring certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology. Because, clearly, the current system of "hope and pray" wasn't working out so well. (rolls eyes) The bill aims to improve helicopter route safety, update air traffic control processes, and address national airspace system safety in Department of Defense activities. You know, all the usual suspects: freedom, security, and... more freedom!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This 127-section monstrosity (yes, you read that right - 127 sections!) includes provisions like:

* Requiring certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology (because who needs personal responsibility when you can have tech?) * Improving helicopter route safety and separation around airports (no more playing chicken in the skies!) * Updating air traffic control processes and procedures (because bureaucracy loves a good update) * Addressing national airspace system safety in Department of Defense activities (those pesky military types need to get with the program)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects everyone from aircraft manufacturers to airlines, pilots, passengers, and even those poor souls who have to deal with air traffic control. (shudders) It's a regular freedom fest! The FAA, Department of Defense, and various other government agencies will also be impacted because, you know, someone has to pay for all this "safety" nonsense.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact? Well, it's a mixed bag. On one hand, we might see fewer mid-air collisions (yay, freedom from death!). On the other hand, we'll likely see increased costs for aircraft manufacturers and airlines, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers (boo, less freedom to afford flights!). And let's not forget the potential job losses in the air traffic control sector - because who needs human error when you can have automated systems? (wink)

In conclusion, folks, the ALERT Act is a "brilliant" piece of legislation that will undoubtedly make our skies safer... or at least, that's what the elites want you to think. (smirks) But hey, who needs critical thinking when you can just shout "freedom" and "safety" really loudly? (chuckles) Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt and morally corrupt United States Congress. The ALERT Act, a bill so cleverly crafted to sound like it's actually doing something useful, while in reality, it's just another exercise in bureaucratic navel-gazing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ALERT Act claims to address aviation safety concerns, specifically collision prevention technology and air traffic control procedures. How noble. But let's not be fooled – this bill is a classic case of "legislative lupus," where the symptoms are treated, but the underlying disease remains unchecked. The real purpose? To create the illusion of action, while lining the pockets of special interest groups and perpetuating the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates the use of collision prevention technology in certain aircraft, updates air traffic control processes, and establishes various working groups and task forces. Oh, joy. Because what we really need is more bureaucracy and paperwork. The changes to existing law are merely cosmetic, designed to create a veneer of progress while maintaining the same old corrupt system.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: aircraft manufacturers, airlines, pilots, air traffic controllers, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the lobbyists and special interest groups who will reap the benefits of this bill. The passengers and families affected by aviation accidents? Just pawns in the game of legislative politics.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The ALERT Act will likely have a negligible impact on aviation safety, but it will certainly create new opportunities for corruption and cronyism. The bill's provisions will be watered down or ignored, while the real issues – lack of funding, inadequate oversight, and industry capture – remain unaddressed. The implications? More of the same: ineffective regulations, bureaucratic red tape, and a continued disregard for human life.

In conclusion, the ALERT Act is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that promises much but delivers little, designed to placate the masses while perpetuating the corrupt system that created the problems in the first place. So, let's give it the diagnosis it deserves: "Terminal Legislative Stupidity" – a disease for which there is no cure, only a never-ending cycle of bureaucratic incompetence and special interest manipulation.

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

**Comprehensive Summary of the ALERT Act (HR 7613)**

### Introduction The ALERT Act, also known as the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency Act of 2026, is a comprehensive legislative proposal aimed at enhancing aviation safety in the United States. This summary provides an overview of the bill's main purpose, key provisions, affected parties, and potential impacts.

### Main Purpose & Objectives The primary objective of the ALERT Act is to improve aviation safety by requiring certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, enhancing helicopter route safety around airports, updating air traffic control processes, and addressing national airspace system safety in Department of Defense activities. The bill seeks to prevent mid-air collisions, reduce risks associated with helicopter operations near airports, and promote a safer aviation environment.

### Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law The ALERT Act introduces several key provisions, including: 1. **Collision Prevention Technology**: Requires certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In, to enhance situational awareness and provide audible alerts to pilots. 2. **Helicopter Route Safety**: Updates helicopter route charts and requires annual reviews to ensure safe separation from other air traffic near airports. 3. **Air Traffic Control Processes**: Enhances air traffic control training, including threat and error management, visual separation, and time-on-position limits. 4. **Department of Defense Matters**: Addresses aviation safety concerns related to Department of Defense activities, including the repeal of prior provisions and requirements for reporting on communications degradation and proficiency flights.

### Affected Parties & Stakeholders The ALERT Act affects various parties and stakeholders, including: 1. **Aircraft Operators**: Commercial airlines, helicopter operators, and private aircraft owners will need to comply with new equipment requirements and operational procedures. 2. **Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)**: The FAA will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the new regulations, as well as providing training and guidance to air traffic controllers and pilots. 3. **Department of Defense**: The Department of Defense will need to adapt its aviation safety protocols and reporting requirements in accordance with the bill's provisions. 4. **Passengers and Crewmembers**: The ultimate beneficiaries of the ALERT Act will be passengers and crewmembers, who will enjoy enhanced safety and reduced risk of mid-air collisions.

### Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact of the ALERT Act is significant, with implications for: 1. **Aviation Safety**: The bill's provisions are expected to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions and improve overall aviation safety. 2. **Regulatory Compliance**: Aircraft operators and the FAA will need to adapt to new regulations, which may require significant investments in equipment, training, and procedural updates. 3. **Costs and Benefits**: While the costs of implementing the ALERT Act's provisions may be substantial, the benefits of enhanced safety and reduced risk are likely to outweigh these expenses. 4. **Future Aviation Safety Initiatives**: The ALERT Act may serve as

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the ALERT Act, bro! This bill is all about makin' our skies safer, man. The main purpose is to prevent mid-air collisions and improve overall aviation safety. It's like, we gotta make sure those planes and helicopters are equipped with the right tech to avoid crashes, you know?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ALERT Act aims to enhance aviation safety by requiring certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, improving helicopter route safety around airports, and updating air traffic control processes. It's all about reducin' the risk of mid-air collisions, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Some key provisions include:

* Requiring certain aircraft to have collision prevention tech, like ADS-B In (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) * Improving helicopter route safety around airports, especially near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport * Updating air traffic control processes and procedures to reduce errors * Establishing a working group to evaluate shared frequency around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport * Requiring vertical separation near airports during critical phases of flight

These changes are gonna impact existing laws and regulations, bro. For example, the bill repeals prior provisions related to manned rotary wing aircraft safety and updates rules for air traffic control facilities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a bunch of parties, man:

* Airlines and aviation companies * Pilots and flight crews * Air traffic controllers * The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) * The Department of Defense (DoD) * Passengers and the general public

These stakeholders will all be impacted by the changes to aviation safety regulations and procedures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is huge, bro. By implementin' these safety measures, we can reduce the risk of mid-air collisions and save lives. It's like, we're talkin' about preventin' tragedies like the one that happened on January 29, 2025, when a Sikorsky UH-60L and an MHI RJ Aviation CRJ700 collided near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

The implications are far-reaching, man. This bill could lead to:

* Improved aviation safety standards * Enhanced public trust in air travel * Reduced risk of accidents and fatalities * Increased efficiency in air traffic control processes

It's all about makin' our skies safer, bro. The ALERT Act is a step in the right direction, and we should be stoked about it!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Comprehensive Summary of the ALERT Act (HR 7613)**

The ALERT Act, introduced in response to a devastating mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on January 29, 2025, aims to enhance aviation safety through various measures. This summary provides an overview of the bill's main purpose and objectives, key provisions and changes to existing law, affected parties and stakeholders, and potential impact and implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the ALERT Act is to improve aviation safety by requiring certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, enhancing helicopter route safety and separation around airports, updating air traffic control processes and procedures, and addressing national airspace system safety in Department of Defense activities. The bill seeks to prevent similar tragedies by promoting situational awareness, reducing errors, and improving emergency response.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The ALERT Act introduces several key provisions, including:

1. **Collision Prevention Technology:** Requires certain aircraft to be equipped with collision prevention technology, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In. 2. **Airborne Collision Avoidance System Upgrades:** Mandates upgrades to airborne collision avoidance systems for rotorcraft and other aircraft. 3. **Helicopter Route Safety:** Enhances helicopter route safety and separation around airports, including the closure of Helicopter Route 4. 4. **Air Traffic Control Processes:** Updates air traffic control processes and procedures, including controller threat and error management training and visual separation training.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The ALERT Act affects various parties, including:

1. **Aircraft Operators:** Commercial airlines, private aircraft owners, and military operators must comply with the new requirements. 2. **Air Traffic Controllers:** Controllers will receive updated training and must adapt to new procedures. 3. **Passengers and Crew Members:** The bill aims to improve safety for all individuals involved in aviation. 4. **Department of Defense:** The legislation addresses national airspace system safety in Department of Defense activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The ALERT Act has significant implications for the aviation industry, including:

1. **Improved Safety:** Enhanced collision prevention technology and updated air traffic control processes can reduce the risk of mid-air collisions. 2. **Increased Costs:** Aircraft operators may face additional expenses to comply with the new requirements. 3. **Regulatory Burden:** The bill may impose a regulatory burden on aircraft operators, air traffic controllers, and other stakeholders. 4. **Industry Resistance:** Some industry stakeholders may resist the changes, citing concerns about cost, feasibility, or potential disruptions to operations.

In conclusion, the ALERT Act is a comprehensive legislation aimed at improving aviation safety in response to a tragic mid-air collision. While it has the potential to reduce risks and improve safety, its implementation may also pose challenges for affected parties and stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$215,569

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$10,269

Committees

Individuals

$205,300

No PAC contributions found

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,500

VOLUME TRANSPORTATION

1 transaction

$2,000

NORTHWEST MISSOURI CELLULAR

1 transaction

$1,000

MIDWEST DATA CENTER

2 transactions

$1,000

DEMOCRACY ENGINE LLC

1 transaction

$469

No committee contributions found

BUSCH, AUGUST

3 transactions

$140,900

MALMSTROM, JULIE

1 transaction

$11,600

LAGER, BRAD

2 transactions

$6,600

LAGER, STEPHANIE

2 transactions

$6,600

BOHLIN, TIFFANY

1 transaction

$3,300

HILL, JARED

1 transaction

$3,300

ADDISON, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUDER, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

CHRISTIAN, LAURA

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVISON, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,300

EBERSOLD, CRAIG

1 transaction

$3,300

GEORGE, BRET A.

1 transaction

$3,300

HAGUE, KALI M

1 transaction

$3,300

HAPTONSTALL, DERON

1 transaction

$3,300

JACKSON, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

NORMAN, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]

ID: L000560

Top Contributors

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

OrganizationLA CONNER, WA

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 5, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Apr 26, 2024

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA

$3,300

May 8, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 26, 2024

THE JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$2,900

May 19, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Jun 14, 2024

Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3]

ID: R000575

Top Contributors

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 20, 2023

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Apr 16, 2024

COOPER CONSTRUCTION CO.

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$500

Mar 16, 2023

BLUE, NEAL

GENERAL ATOMICS • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$150,000

Apr 1, 2024

BLUE, NEAL

GENERAL ATOMICS • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$125,000

Mar 22, 2023

RANE, JIMMY

YELLAWOOD • PRESIDENT

IndividualABBEVILLE, AL

$52,900

Aug 3, 2023

ARONOV, JAKE

ARONOV REALTY • PRESIDENT

IndividualMONTGOMERY, AL

$50,000

Sep 22, 2023

COLLAZO, FRANCISCO

COLSA CORP. • FOUNDER / CHAIRMAN

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$50,000

Feb 9, 2023

Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]

ID: S000510

Top Contributors

COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationLONGVIEW, WA

$3,300

Mar 22, 2024

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 21, 2024

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 17, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

Jun 26, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Sep 11, 2024

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$3,300

Sep 11, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$2,900

Dec 15, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$2,900

Jun 26, 2023

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$2,500

Dec 15, 2023

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSEDRO WOOLLEY, WA

$2,000

Dec 6, 2023

Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]

ID: N000026

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

COMLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

GONSOULIN, AL A

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 23, 2024

MARCHELI, DANNY

CLEAR PAVE • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 30, 2023

EMPARTIO, JOESPH

HERITAGE RANCH LLC • OWNER

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Sep 10, 2024

DOUDS, KENNETH

KBR BUILDERS • OWNER

IndividualSTAFFORD, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

GILL, EDWARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHALLETTSVILLE, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

MARCHELI, DANIEL

CLEAR PAVE LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

DOUDS, ROBERT F JR.

SELF EMPLOYED • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Dec 3, 2024

Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7]

ID: C001072

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 22, 2023

INDIANA IMPORT LLC

OrganizationFISHERS, IN

$1,000

Nov 11, 2023

MNAYMEH, HALA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DE LA CRUZ, FABIO

WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PARTNER

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

KHAN, AZHER M

CALDERON TEXTILES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCARMEL, IN

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

HOGAN, ALAN P.

THE HOGAN GROUP, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

JOHNSON, LACY M.

ICE MILLER • ATTORNEY

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 16, 2023

STACK, ANN M.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Feb 22, 2023

ABDALLA, MIKE A.

MAGNA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Mar 11, 2024

MAMOUN, IHSAN

SDI RADIOLOGY • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSEFFNER, FL

$3,300

Jan 23, 2024

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

ID: C001087

Top Contributors

KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.

SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • PARTNER

IndividualMETA, MO

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.

SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • PARTNER

IndividualMETA, MO

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER MR.

ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jan 24, 2023

WALTON, ROB MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

HEDGE, BETTY MRS.

HEDGES INC. • OWNER

IndividualPARAGOULD, AR

$3,300

Jun 4, 2024

HEDGE, RANDY MR.

HEDGES INC • OWNER

IndividualPARAGOULD, AR

$3,300

Jun 4, 2024

DILLARD, DENNIS ALEXANDER MR.

DILLARD'S INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Sep 17, 2024

LAMBERT, RYAN MR.

SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

COOPER, JOHN A. MR. III

COOPER COMMUNITIES INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualROGERS, AR

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

STEPHENS, WARREN A. MR.

STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]

ID: R000603

Top Contributors

WRIGHT, DEREK

MERIDIEN MARKETING AND LOGISTICS, INC • EXPORT

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,435

Mar 27, 2024

CREASY, DONALD J

CARUTHERS PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCLAYTON, NC

$3,435

Jun 11, 2024

ESTEP, HANK

GRIFFIN ESTEP • INSURANCE

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,435

May 16, 2024

POWERS, DAVID M.

SELF EMPLOYED • PUBLIC AFFAIRS

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,435

Sep 6, 2024

BERGMAN, LEAH MARIE

SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCHAPEL HILL, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

CONNORS, CATHERINE F

SOLSTICE PARTNERS LLC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCARY, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

DEGIACINTO, CLAY

AXONIC CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

ELLIS, GARY

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualMATTHEWS, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

MILLS, FRED G JR.

MILLS CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualWAKE FOREST, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

WINROCK GROUP INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

ID: M000871

Top Contributors

PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION

OrganizationMAYETTA, KS

$3,300

Jul 18, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$2,500

Sep 9, 2024

DEMETREE, MARK

DEMETREE SALT LLC • CEO

IndividualLEAWOOD, KS

$13,200

Nov 3, 2023

CORDES, SHANE L.

MIDWEST ATC • CEO

IndividualCHERRY HILLS VILLA, CO

$13,200

Nov 3, 2023

FLOYD, MARTIE

SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER

IndividualJOHNSON, KS

$6,600

Dec 8, 2023

HEBENSTREIT, JAMES

BARTLETT AND COMPANY • PRESIDENT

IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO

$6,600

Dec 4, 2023

FLOYD, MARTIE

SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER

IndividualJOHNSON, KS

$6,600

Dec 8, 2023

BARTON, TIMOTHY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Nov 2, 2023

HURD, MATTHEW D.

INSCO • PRESIDENT

IndividualWELLSVILLE, KS

$6,600

Dec 11, 2023

OLSEN, LINDSAY

MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST CORPORATION • PRESIDENT

IndividualPRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS

$6,600

Mar 16, 2023

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

ID: E000235

Top Contributors

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC - ALEX HINSON, PARTNER AND CHIEF EXEC. OFFICER

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$2,500

Nov 2, 2023

ALLY TELECOM GROUP LLC - PARTNERSHIP - MITCH KALIFEH

OrganizationMETAIRIE, LA

$2,500

Aug 30, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Apr 25, 2023

GONC LTC, LLC

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$1,000

Sep 14, 2023

STEED'S COLLISION CTR, LLC - LAURA STEED MANAGER

OrganizationBILOXI, MS

$1,000

Aug 30, 2023

WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$1,000

Aug 30, 2023

TEN ONE STRATEGIES - JOHN HUGHES, MANAGING PARTNER

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$500

Aug 25, 2023

GULF PRIDE COMPANIES, LLC - ERICH N. NICHOLS, MANAGER

OrganizationGULFPORT, MS

$250

Aug 30, 2023

WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$250

Aug 25, 2023

DUNAGIN, MELINDA

DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS • OFFICE MANAGER

IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

ID: F000480

Top Contributors

TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Aug 9, 2024

ANDERSON, DARIUS

PLATINUM ADVISORS • LOBBYIST

IndividualSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • BOARD DIRECTOR

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

HUNTER, KEN

VAQUERO ENERGY • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BAND MIWOK INDIANS, SHINGLE SPRINGS

N/A • N/A

IndividualPLACERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Nov 6, 2024

ROJEWSKI, COLE

RBW GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualCLOVIS, CA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

ROJEWSKI, COLE

RBW GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualCLOVIS, CA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2023

EKEGREN, JONATHAN

BARBER HONDA • GENERAL MANAGER

IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2023

EKEGREN, JONATHAN

BARBER HONDA • GENERAL MANAGER

IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2023

MOJIBI, AMANDA

IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 36 nodes and 43 connections

Total contributions: $43

Top Donors - Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.

+Aerospace (Commercial)confidence 0.90
The bill mandates collision prevention technology upgrades for aircraft, including ACAS Xa and ACAS Xr systems, which will drive demand for avionics manufacturers and aerospace suppliers (e.g., GE Aerospace, Honeywell, Collins Aerospace) that produce these systems. Sections 102, 103, and 104 require rulemaking to equip selected aircraft with integrated collision prevention technology, creating a market for upgrades and new installations.
+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.80
Title II requires Department of Defense aircraft to equip with collision prevention technology and ADS-B Out, creating contracts for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing's defense division to install these systems on military aircraft. Sections 201-207 mandate safety upgrades for DoD aviation, including risk assessments, transponder maintenance, and flight data monitoring improvements.
−Airlinesconfidence 0.75
Sections 102, 103, and 104 impose costs on airlines to retrofit fleets with ACAS Xa/Xr and collision prevention technology by 2031-2033 deadlines. Section 111 may reduce operational rates at DCA through instrument flight rules allocation limits, potentially decreasing airline revenue. While safety improvements long-term benefit airlines, the immediate financial burden of mandated upgrades constitutes a clear cost.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6])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

Aerospace (Commercial)$21,000
from 29 contributions
- CALHOUN, DAVID$2,500
- GIAMBASTIANI, PETE$2,000
- OJAKLI, ZIAD$2,000
- SIMMONS, ROBERT$1,500
- CULP, LARRY$1,000
Defense Contractors$3,000
from 3 contributions
- BERMAN, IRA$1,000
- RITTER, DOUGLAS$1,000
- PROWITT, PETER$1,000

Industries this bill HARMS

Airlines$59,550
from 50 contributions
- PHILLIPS, ERIC$6,600
- GATTEN, NATHAN J.$4,000
- BELLEMARE, ALAIN$3,300
- CARTER, PETER$3,300
- LAUGHTER, JOHN$3,300

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

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the ALERT Act and the Project 2025 DOT section emphasize using technology to enhance transportation safety and advocate for a balanced spectrum allocation to support safety‑critical systems, though the ALERT Act focuses on aviation while the Project 2025 text centers on ground‑based automated vehicles and CAFE standards."

Key themes:transportation safetytechnology integrationspectrum allocationDOT 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

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 664-666AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ALERT Act focuses on specific safety measures like collision prevention technology and helicopter route safety, but does not address the broader FAA reform, funding restructuring, workforce modernization, or adoption of digital/remote towers and DataComm emphasized in Project 2025."

Key themes:aviation safetyair traffic controltechnology adoptionFAA oversight

— 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.

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ALERT Act focuses on aviation safety measures, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt addresses railroad and maritime policies within the Department of Transportation; there is no substantive overlap in objectives or provisions."

Key themes:transportation safetyDOT oversight

— 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

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ALERT Act focuses on aviation safety through collision prevention technology, helicopter route safety, and air traffic control reforms, while the Project 2025 EPA policy section addresses environmental regulation, emissions standards, air permitting, and climate change initiatives. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter or policy objectives between the two documents."

— 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.

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ALERT Act focuses on aviation safety measures, while the Project 2025 agriculture section deals with farm subsidy reform; there is no thematic connection."

— 296 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise support went to just six commodities—corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat—that together account for only 28 percent of farm receipts.32 Although many farmers do not receive much in the way of subsidies, especially those in the areas of livestock and specialty crops (fruit, vegetable, and nuts),33 there are still a sig- nificant number of farmers growing row crops like corn and cotton that do receive significant farm subsidies. The primary subsidy programs include the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program,34 the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program,35 and the federal crop insur- ance program.36 Farmers can participate on a crop-by-crop basis in the ARC program or the PLC program. These programs cover about 20 different crops.37 The ARC program protects farmers from what are referred to as “shallow” losses, pro- viding payments when their actual revenues fall below 86 percent of the expected revenues for their crops.38 The PLC program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed, statutorily established reference price.39 The federal crop insurance program is broader in scope than ARC and PLC, and in crop year 2019 covered 124 commodities.40 Farmers pay a portion of a premium to participate in the program. Taxpayers on average pay about 60 per- cent41 of the premium. As explained by CRS, “Revenue Protection was the most frequently purchased policy type in 2019, accounting for almost 70 [percent] of policies purchased.”42 While there are certainly other subsidy programs besides ARC, PLC, and federal crop insurance, one program that deserves special mention is the federal sugar program. This program, unlike most other subsidy programs, intentionally tries to restrict supply43 and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year.44 When it comes to reforming subsidy programs, the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions. The next Administration should champion legislation that would: l Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.45 l Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow — 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit,

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. Graves, Sam

BUILD America 250 Act

119/hr/8870

Water Resources Development Act of 2026

119/hr/9497

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025

119/hr/4275

Back to All Bills