TSA Commuting Fairness Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/862

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

TSA Commuting Fairness Act

HR. 862, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

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

The money

$79,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 667-669 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

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

March 10, 2025

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:

**Analysis of HR 862: TSA Commuting Fairness Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of efficiency, innovation, and, most importantly, its impact on my business interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The TSA Commuting Fairness Act aims to alleviate commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees by potentially treating their travel time as on-duty hours. This bill is a classic example of bureaucratic tinkering, attempting to address a minor issue within the government's labyrinthine structure.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates a feasibility study to explore the possibility of compensating TSA employees for their commute time between regular duty locations and airport parking lots or bus and transit stops. This study will consider various factors, including travel times, potential benefits, and estimated costs. If implemented, this change could set a precedent for other government agencies to reevaluate their compensation structures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are TSA employees, who may benefit from increased compensation or reduced commuting burdens. However, the real impact will be felt by taxpayers, who will foot the bill for these potential changes. My business interests, which rely on efficient and streamlined operations, will also be affected if this bill sets a precedent for similar measures in other industries.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill's passage could lead to increased costs for taxpayers, as TSA employees may receive additional compensation for their commute time. This, in turn, could create a ripple effect throughout the government, prompting other agencies to reexamine their compensation structures. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill's true impact lies not in its immediate effects but in its potential to stifle innovation and efficiency.

**Recommendation:** As a thought leader, I advise against supporting this bill. Its focus on minor bureaucratic adjustments distracts from the real issues plaguing our economy: overregulation, inefficiency, and a lack of innovation. Instead, we should be pushing for sweeping reforms that promote privatization, deregulation, and the empowerment of visionary entrepreneurs like myself.

**Projected Impact on My Business Interests:** If this bill sets a precedent for similar measures in other industries, I estimate a potential 5-10% increase in operational costs due to increased regulatory burdens. However, by leveraging my vast network of think tanks and lobbying efforts, I can mitigate these effects and ensure that my business interests continue to thrive.

In conclusion, the TSA Commuting Fairness Act is a minor skirmish in the war against bureaucratic inefficiency. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will continue to push for bold reforms that prioritize innovation, deregulation, and the empowerment of entrepreneurs like myself.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

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 several stages before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of HR 862, the TSA Commuting Fairness Act, is to reduce commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. The bill aims to conduct a feasibility study on treating time spent traveling between regular duty locations and airport parking lots as on-duty hours.

As we covered in middle school, bills often have multiple objectives. In this case, the bill also seeks to consider various factors related to TSA employee commuting times, such as travel time, potential benefits, and estimated costs.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Section 2 of the bill requires the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration to submit a study on the feasibility of treating certain commuting hours as on-duty hours. This study must consider several factors, including:

* Travel times between regular duty locations and airport parking lots * Average commuting times exclusive of travel time * Potential benefits for TSA employees and the administration * Feasibility of using mobile phones and location data to track arrival and departure times * Estimated costs, including creditable hours for retirement purposes

As we learned in civics class, bills often propose changes to existing laws or regulations. In this case, if passed, the bill would require the TSA Administrator to conduct a study that could potentially lead to changes in how commuting time is treated for TSA employees.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees * The TSA administration itself * Airport authorities and management * Congressional committees, such as the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

As we discussed in class, bills often impact various groups and individuals. In this case, the bill's provisions would directly affect TSA employees and potentially influence airport operations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, the bill could have several implications:

* TSA employees might receive compensation for commuting time, which could improve their working conditions and morale. * The study required by the bill could lead to changes in how commuting time is treated for TSA employees, potentially affecting labor laws and regulations. * Airport authorities and management might need to adapt to new requirements or procedures related to employee commuting times.

As I taught you, bills can have far-reaching consequences. In this case, the potential impact of HR 862 would depend on the outcome of the feasibility study and any subsequent changes to existing law.

Now, if only people had paid attention in their 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "TSA Commuting Fairness Act" (HR 862). On the surface, it appears to be a benevolent bill aimed at reducing commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration employees. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this legislation than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 862 is to alleviate the commuting woes of TSA employees by potentially treating their travel time between regular duty locations and airport parking lots as on-duty hours. Sounds reasonable, right? But what if I told you that this bill might be a Trojan horse for something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration to conduct a feasibility study within 270 days of enactment. This study will examine the practicality of treating TSA employees' commuting time as on-duty hours, considering factors such as travel times, benefits, and estimated costs. But here's the thing: this study could be used to justify further surveillance and data collection on TSA employees, potentially infringing upon their civil liberties.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, HR 862 appears to benefit TSA employees by reducing their commuting burdens. However, I believe this bill has far-reaching implications for all citizens. Think about it: if the government can justify treating TSA employees' commuting time as on-duty hours, what's to stop them from applying similar logic to other federal agencies or even private sector companies? This could lead to a slippery slope where our personal time becomes increasingly monitored and controlled.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. By treating TSA employees' commuting time as on-duty hours, the government might be able to:

1. **Increase surveillance**: By using mobile phones, location data, and other means to track TSA employees' movements, the government could establish a precedent for widespread monitoring of citizens. 2. **Expand the definition of "work"**: If commuting time is considered on-duty hours, what's to stop the government from redefining other aspects of our lives as "work-related"? This could lead to an erosion of personal freedoms and an increase in government control. 3. **Create a new revenue stream**: By treating TSA employees' commuting time as on-duty hours, the government might be able to tap into new sources of funding or create new tax incentives.

Wake up, sheeple! HR 862 is not just about helping TSA employees; it's about expanding government control and surveillance under the guise of "fairness." Stay vigilant, my friends, and remember: in the world of conspiracy theories, nothing is as it seems.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a real doozy for you tonight. We're diving into the so-called "TSA Commuting Fairness Act" – sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This bill is just another example of our out-of-touch elites trying to strangle American freedom with bureaucratic red tape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to reduce commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. Sounds noble, but let's get real – it's just a thinly veiled attempt to expand the federal government's reach into our daily lives. The main objective here is to treat TSA employees' commute time as "on-duty hours," effectively padding their paychecks and benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Administrator of the TSA to conduct a feasibility study on treating commute time as on-duty hours. This study will consider factors like travel time, average commuting times, potential benefits, and estimated costs. But let's be real, folks – this is just a Trojan horse for more government overreach. The real change here is that it sets a precedent for the feds to start meddling in our commutes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** TSA employees are the obvious beneficiaries of this bill, but what about the rest of us? What about the taxpayers who'll be footing the bill for these expanded benefits? And what about the airlines and airports that'll have to deal with the bureaucratic fallout from this legislation?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. If we start treating commute time as on-duty hours for TSA employees, where does it end? Will we be next? Will our morning coffee breaks become "on-the-clock" too? The implications are staggering – more government control, more taxpayer dollars wasted, and less freedom for the American people.

(With a wink) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this just a small bill to help some hardworking TSA employees?" Ah, no. This is about setting a precedent, folks. It's about the elites in Washington trying to chip away at our freedom, one bureaucratic regulation at a time.

(Smirk) So, let's call this bill what it really is: a power grab by the deep state. We can't let them get away with it, folks. We must stand strong and defend our freedom from these insidious attempts to control us. (Pauses for dramatic effect) Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The TSA Commuting Fairness Act (HR 862) - because nothing says "fairness" like a bill that's really just a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes and appease special interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to reduce commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees by treating their travel time between regular duty locations and airport parking lots as on-duty hours. Oh, how noble. In reality, it's just a clever way to increase the TSA's labor costs and create more bureaucratic red tape.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Administrator of the TSA to conduct a feasibility study within 270 days of enactment, which will consider various factors such as travel time, commuting hours, potential benefits, and estimated costs. Because, you know, we need a whole study to figure out whether or not it's feasible to pay people for their commute time. The bill also conveniently leaves the door open for "other considerations" determined by the Administrator - code for "we'll figure out ways to justify this boondoggle later."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The TSA employees, of course, will be the primary beneficiaries of this bill. Or so they think. In reality, they'll just get more paperwork and bureaucratic hoops to jump through. The real winners here are the politicians who sponsored this bill, who can now claim they're "supporting our hardworking TSA agents" while actually just padding their own résumés.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "unintended consequences." By treating commute time as on-duty hours, we'll likely see increased labor costs, which will be passed on to taxpayers. The TSA might also use this as an excuse to hire more administrative staff to handle the added paperwork, further bloating their bureaucracy. And let's not forget the precedent this sets - if we start paying people for their commute time, where do we draw the line? Will we soon be paying federal employees for their morning coffee breaks and lunch hours too?

In short, HR 862 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a solution in search of a problem, designed to appease special interests and buy votes rather than actually address any real issues. But hey, at least it'll make for some great campaign ads - "I supported our hardworking TSA agents by voting for the Commuting Fairness Act!" Yeah, right. More like "I supported my own re-election bid by pandering to a vocal special interest group."

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

**TSA Commuting Fairness Act (HR 862)**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The TSA Commuting Fairness Act aims to reduce commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees by exploring the feasibility of treating their travel time between regular duty locations and airport parking lots or bus and transit stops as on-duty hours.

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

* The bill requires the Administrator of the TSA to conduct a feasibility study within 270 days of enactment, examining the potential benefits and costs of treating commuting time as on-duty hours for TSA employees working at airport locations. * The study must consider factors such as travel time, average commute times, potential benefits to employees and the Administration, and estimated costs, including retirement pay implications.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, particularly those working at airport locations * TSA management and administrators responsible for implementing policies and procedures * Congressional committees with oversight of homeland security and transportation matters

**Potential Impact and Implications:** If implemented, the bill could have several implications:

* **Improved work-life balance:** Treating commuting time as on-duty hours could provide TSA employees with more predictable schedules and better compensation for their travel time. * **Increased employee satisfaction:** Recognizing commuting time as part of an employee's workday may lead to higher job satisfaction and reduced turnover rates among TSA personnel. * **Administrative costs:** Implementing this policy could result in additional administrative costs, including potential changes to payroll systems and retirement benefits calculations. * **Precedent for other agencies:** The outcome of this study and any subsequent policy changes could set a precedent for other federal agencies with employees who face similar commuting challenges.

Overall, the TSA Commuting Fairness Act aims to address the unique commuting challenges faced by TSA employees and explore ways to improve their working conditions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the TSA Commuting Fairness Act, bro. This bill is all about makin' life easier for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees who are stuck with gnarly commutes to and from work.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main goal of this bill is to reduce the commuting burdens on TSA employees by treatin' their travel time between regular duty locations and airport parking lots or bus stops as on-duty hours. It's like, if you're already spendin' an hour gettin' to work, why shouldn't that count towards your paycheck, man?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the TSA Administrator to conduct a feasibility study within 270 days of enactment. This study will look at how practical it is to treat commuting time as on-duty hours for TSA employees at different types of airports (small hub, medium hub, and large hub). The study will consider factors like:

* Time spent travelin' between duty locations and airport parking lots or bus stops * Average commute times for TSA employees * Potential benefits for employees and the Administration * Feasibility of using tech to track employee arrival and departure times * Estimated costs, including how it would affect retirement pay

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill is all about helpin' out TSA employees, bro. They're the ones who are gonna benefit from this change. But it's also gonna impact the TSA Administration itself, since they'll have to figure out how to implement these changes and deal with any potential costs.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it could make a big difference for TSA employees who are stuck with long commutes. It could lead to:

* More fair compensation for employees * Reduced turnover rates (since employees won't be as stressed about their commutes) * Improved morale and productivity

But, on the other hand, there might be some costs associated with implementin' these changes. The TSA Administration will have to figure out how to make it work without breakin' the bank.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on the TSA Commuting Fairness Act, bro. It's all about makin' life easier for TSA employees and treatin' 'em fairly.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 862: TSA Commuting Fairness Act - A Bill with Strings Attached**

The TSA Commuting Fairness Act, HR 862, appears to be a benevolent bill aimed at reducing commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. However, upon closer inspection, it reveals a more complex web of interests and motivations.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to conduct a feasibility study on treating TSA employees' commute time as on-duty hours. This would potentially benefit TSA employees by providing them with additional compensation and benefits for their travel time between regular duty locations and airport parking lots or bus and transit stops.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration to submit a study within 270 days, considering various factors such as commute times, potential benefits, and estimated costs. The study would also explore the feasibility of using mobile phones and location data to track employees' arrival and departure times.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are TSA employees, who may benefit from additional compensation and benefits. However, other affected parties include:

* Airports and airlines, which might face increased costs due to potential changes in employee compensation * The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which would need to implement new policies and procedures * Labor unions representing TSA employees, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While the bill's intentions seem noble, its passage could have significant implications:

* Increased costs for airports and airlines might be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees or fares * The feasibility study could lead to changes in employee compensation, potentially benefiting TSA employees but also increasing labor costs for the TSA * Labor unions, such as AFGE, may use this bill as leverage to negotiate better working conditions and benefits for their members

**Monied Interest Analysis:** Notably, the bill's sponsor, Representative [Name], has received significant campaign contributions from labor unions, including AFGE. Additionally, the airline industry has a history of lobbying against increased labor costs. The Air Transport Association (ATA) and Airlines for America (A4A), two prominent industry lobby groups, may attempt to influence the outcome of this bill.

**Committee Capture:** The bill's referral to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation raises concerns about committee capture. This committee has a history of being influenced by special interest groups, including labor unions and airline industry lobbyists.

In conclusion, while HR 862 appears to be a straightforward bill aimed at benefiting TSA employees, it is entangled in a complex web of interests and motivations. The feasibility study required by the bill could lead to significant changes in employee compensation and benefits, with far-reaching implications for airports, airlines, and labor unions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$79,500

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,600

Committees

Individuals

$72,900

No PAC contributions found

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

No committee contributions found

RECHLER, SCOTT H.

2 transactions

$10,000

FROMEN, JOHN J. JR

2 transactions

$8,400

O'BRIEN, CHRISTOPHER

1 transaction

$5,000

LOGOTHETIS, GEORGE

1 transaction

$3,300

SIMON, BRIAN W.

1 transaction

$3,300

LO, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

YUHNKE, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

BUCHHEIT, GERALD A.

1 transaction

$3,300

CIMINELLI, PAUL F.

1 transaction

$3,300

CARONE, FRANK

1 transaction

$3,300

CARUBBA, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$3,300

PERSICO, JENNIFER C.

1 transaction

$3,300

OSTROFF, RICHARD L.

1 transaction

$3,300

MERINOFF, CHARLES

1 transaction

$3,300

COLE, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$3,300

CORRADO, JOHN J.

1 transaction

$3,300

KOSTRZEWSKI, MARK B.

1 transaction

$3,300

COLE, MARGIE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]

ID: G000597

Top Contributors

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationPEARL, MS

$1,000

Nov 5, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2023

DUIT, JAMES

CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER

IndividualEDMOND, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

DUIT, PAMELA

CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER

IndividualEDMOND, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

WINROCK ENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

RICKETTS, MARLENE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

LEACH, HOWARD

SELF EMPLOYED • PRIVATE INVESTOR

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

FEINSTEIN, LEONARD

BED BATH AND BEYOND • CHAIRMAN

IndividualJERICHO, NY

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

BANKE, BARBARA R.

JACKSON FAMILY WINES • OWNER

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

SMITH, HOLLY

SHOOK HARDY BACON LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

ID: C001112

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jan 11, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Feb 24, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Feb 24, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 26, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 21, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,500

Dec 19, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20]

ID: C001127

Top Contributors

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Nov 4, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 20, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Sep 8, 2023

FIGGERS, FREDDIE

FIGGERS • INVENTOR

IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL

$6,600

Jun 8, 2023

FIGGERS, FREDDIE

IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL

$6,600

Sep 25, 2023

MOISE, RUDOLPH

IndividualDAVIE, FL

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

GEORGE, DAVID J.

REFUEL DEPOT LLC • SALES

IndividualLEADWOOD, KS

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

GOLDEN, SYLVIA

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Aug 18, 2024

GORI, PHILIP

SELF • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Sep 16, 2024

MUELLER, KYLE

ZUTEK • DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

IndividualOLATHE, KS

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]

ID: W000788

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,000

Jul 31, 2024

ZALIK, HELEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$6,600

Jan 6, 2024

ZALIK, DAVID

GOLDMAN SACHS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualMARIETTA, GA

$6,600

Jan 3, 2024

ENGEL, ILENE

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,800

Jan 18, 2024

BRYSON, JAN PRISBY

BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT • FOUNDER

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ANDERSON, DARRELL

A-NATIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICE • PRESIDENT

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

REED, MOHAMMED K.

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY • ATTORNEY

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

GLUSTROM, ROBERT

SELF • INVESTOR

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

GOLDMAN, ANGELA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

Rep. LaLota, Nick [R-NY-1]

ID: L000598

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large]

ID: M001238

Top Contributors

SOKOLA FOR SENATE

COMNEWARK, DE

$1,000

Dec 15, 2023

HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Dec 30, 2023

ATLAS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC

OrganizationBALTIMORE, MD

$1,000

Jun 12, 2024

EASTERN SUSSEX DEMOCRATS

OrganizationLEWES, DE

$1,000

Jun 23, 2024

FRIENDS FOR HANSEN

OrganizationMIDDLETOWN, DE

$600

Oct 6, 2024

FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR

OrganizationTRURO, MA

$500

Nov 4, 2024

FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR

OrganizationTRURO, MA

$500

Apr 30, 2024

FRIENDS OF SHARIF STREET

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$500

Jun 5, 2024

SC PAC

OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE

$500

Sep 10, 2024

SC PAC

OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE

$500

Oct 11, 2024

Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4]

ID: G000602

Top Contributors

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jul 18, 2023

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jun 5, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E

SELF-EMPLOYED • OPHTHALMOLOGIST

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Nov 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

HELFER, RICKI

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$4,000

Sep 10, 2024

ANDEER, KYLE

APPLE INC • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 27, 2024

BINDER, CHARLES

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

BURNSTEIN, CLIFFORD

Q PRIME • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 38 nodes and 47 connections

Total contributions: $47

Top Donors - Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 667-669AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on TSA employee commuting compensation, while the Project 2025 policy critiques mass transit funding, labor costs, and federal subsidies—topics only tangentially related through the broader theme of commuting, but with no direct policy alignment."

Key themes:commutingtransportationfederal employees

— 635 — Department of Transportation commutes from urban buses to rideshare or electric scooter, the use of public transit decreases. A better definition for public transit (which also would require congressional legislation) would be transit provided for the public rather than transit provided by a public municipality. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial decline in usage for all forms of transportation. Mass transit has been the slowest mode to recover, with October 2022 ridership reaching only 64 percent of the level seen in October 2019. The sustained increase in remote work has caused changes in commuting patterns. Since facilitating travel for workers is one of the core functions of mass transit systems, a permanent reduction in commuting raises questions about the viability of fixed-route mass transit, especially considering that transit systems required substantial subsidization before the pandemic. Regrettably, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act13 authorized tens of billions of dollars for the expansion of transit systems even as Americans were moving away from them and into personal vehicles. Lower revenue from reduced ridership is already driving transit agencies to a budgetary breaking point, and added operational costs from system expansions will make this problem worse. The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is another example of Washing- ton’s tendency to fund transit expansion rather than maintaining or improving current facilities. The CIG program, which began in 1991, funds only novel transit projects. These can include new rail lines (regardless of the demand for preexisting rail in the area) and costly operations such as streetcars. Because Americans have demonstrated a strong preference for alternative means of transportation, rather than throwing good money after bad by continuing federal subsidies for transit expansion, there should be a focus on reducing costs that make transit uneconomical. The Trump Administration urged Congress to eliminate the CIG program, but the program has strong support on Capitol Hill. At a minimum, a new conservative Administration should ensure that each CIG project meets sound economic standards and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The largest expense in transit operational budgets is labor. Compensation costs for transit workers exceed both regional and sector compensation averages. This is driven by generous pension and health benefits rather than by exorbitant wages. Since workers value wages more than they value fringe benefits, this has led to a perverse situation in which transit agencies have high compensation costs yet are struggling to attract workers. The next Administration can remove the largest obstacle to reforming labor costs. Section 10(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 196414 was initially intended to protect bargaining rights for workers in privately owned transit sys- tems that were being absorbed by government-operated agencies. The provision has mutated into a requirement that any transit agency receiving federal funds cannot reduce compensation, an interpretation that far exceeds the original statute. — 636 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Returning to the original intent would allow transit agencies to adjust fringe ben- efits without fearing a federal lawsuit. It is also vital to move away from using the Highway Trust Fund to prop up mass transit. The fund was driven into insolvency (and repeated bailouts) through decades of transfers to transit without any increase in transit usage to show for it. With the federal government facing mounting debt, the best course of action would be to remove federal subsidies for transit spending, allowing states and localities to decide whether mass transit is a good investment for them. FEDERAL RAILROAD POLICY The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is making decisions based on political considerations that are at variance with its safety mission. Instead of basing regulatory decisions on the costs and benefits of the available alterna- tives, FRA is promoting actions that favor the status quo and inhibit the use of technology to improve railroad safety. FRA should be making decisions based on objective evidence of the most cost-effective way to accomplish the agency’s safety goals. FRA’s singular focus on job preservation is contrary to FRA’s mission, and it has a deleterious effect on the morale of FRA’s professional staff, as shown by the annual employee surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. FRA needs to communicate clearly to its career employees a new commitment to making decisions that are consistent with the agency’s safety mission. FRA’s procedures call for decisions on waivers to be made by its Safety Board. Appeals can be taken to the Administrator. However, FRA has deviated from these procedures as the Administrator has injected himself into Safety Board decisions. FRA needs to review its actions with respect to specific proceedings where the agency’s direction cannot be justified. For example: l FRA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on crew size is not based on safety considerations; it is designed to reduce flexibility by making it impossible for railroads to operate with crews of fewer than two in circumstances where there is no operational need for the second crew member. l Although FRA could adopt a modern inspection program that takes advantage of technological ways to inspect track, it is refusing to amend 50-year-old track inspection requirements, leaving customers with higher costs. l FRA is refusing to take final action on a rulemaking proceeding that would modernize brake inspection requirements by taking advantage of the ability

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 667-669AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on TSA employee commuting time compensation, which is unrelated to Project 2025's DOT section addressing air traffic organization reform, transit policy definitions, and labor cost challenges in public transit systems."

Key themes:transportationemployee compensationDOT

— 634 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise These shortcomings have been documented over many decades by the Govern- ment Accountability Office and DOT Inspector General. One peer-reviewed study for the Hudson Institute by scholar Robert Poole identified the ATO’s underlying problems as including an overly cautious culture, a growing lack of technological and managerial expertise, the inability to finance major capital projects with rev- enue bonds, and overdependence on aerospace/defense contractors.12 All of these problems are interrelated. Because of the ATO’s lack of top-notch engineers and program managers, it has become dependent on aerospace contrac- tors, unlike counterparts in Canada and the United Kingdom. Operating within the constraints imposed by the annual congressional appropriations process—and with no bonding authority—the ATO is forced to implement major projects piecemeal over many years. The ATO’s overly cautious culture appears to stem from its being embedded in a safety regulatory agency rather than being regulated at arm’s length (as are airlines and airports). Three organizational changes, all requiring legislation, offer the likelihood of dealing with these problems based on the experiences of air traffic providers in Canada and Europe. They could be implemented one at a time or together. l Separate the ATO from the FAA and relocate it to separate headquarters outside the District of Columbia. l Shift from aviation user taxes to fees for air traffic services paid directly to the ATO. l Allow the ATO to issue long-term revenue bonds for major projects. Shorter-term reforms could include implementing user fees for unconventional airspace users (for example, advanced air mobility, space launch, and recovery) and giving the ATO a deadline after which it could not authorize or fund any more nondigital/remote control towers. These reforms would also require legislation. FEDERAL TRANSIT POLICY The definition of “mobility” continues to evolve dramatically with the rise of new multimodal concepts, traveler needs, and emerging capabilities. These fun- damental changes in the way transportation services are offered also influence the form of our communities. New micromobility solutions, ridesharing, and a possible future that includes autonomous vehicles mean that mobility options—particularly in urban areas— can alter the nature of public transit, making it more affordable and flexible for Americans. Unfortunately, DOT now defines public transit only as transit pro- vided by municipal governments. This means that when individuals change their — 635 — Department of Transportation commutes from urban buses to rideshare or electric scooter, the use of public transit decreases. A better definition for public transit (which also would require congressional legislation) would be transit provided for the public rather than transit provided by a public municipality. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial decline in usage for all forms of transportation. Mass transit has been the slowest mode to recover, with October 2022 ridership reaching only 64 percent of the level seen in October 2019. The sustained increase in remote work has caused changes in commuting patterns. Since facilitating travel for workers is one of the core functions of mass transit systems, a permanent reduction in commuting raises questions about the viability of fixed-route mass transit, especially considering that transit systems required substantial subsidization before the pandemic. Regrettably, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act13 authorized tens of billions of dollars for the expansion of transit systems even as Americans were moving away from them and into personal vehicles. Lower revenue from reduced ridership is already driving transit agencies to a budgetary breaking point, and added operational costs from system expansions will make this problem worse. The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is another example of Washing- ton’s tendency to fund transit expansion rather than maintaining or improving current facilities. The CIG program, which began in 1991, funds only novel transit projects. These can include new rail lines (regardless of the demand for preexisting rail in the area) and costly operations such as streetcars. Because Americans have demonstrated a strong preference for alternative means of transportation, rather than throwing good money after bad by continuing federal subsidies for transit expansion, there should be a focus on reducing costs that make transit uneconomical. The Trump Administration urged Congress to eliminate the CIG program, but the program has strong support on Capitol Hill. At a minimum, a new conservative Administration should ensure that each CIG project meets sound economic standards and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The largest expense in transit operational budgets is labor. Compensation costs for transit workers exceed both regional and sector compensation averages. This is driven by generous pension and health benefits rather than by exorbitant wages. Since workers value wages more than they value fringe benefits, this has led to a perverse situation in which transit agencies have high compensation costs yet are struggling to attract workers. The next Administration can remove the largest obstacle to reforming labor costs. Section 10(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 196414 was initially intended to protect bargaining rights for workers in privately owned transit sys- tems that were being absorbed by government-operated agencies. The provision has mutated into a requirement that any transit agency receiving federal funds cannot reduce compensation, an interpretation that far exceeds the original statute.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 621-623AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section address federal employee work conditions and compensation, but the bill focuses on commuting time while the Project 2025 policies center on Sabbath pay, telework rules, and independent work flexibility, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:employee compensationwork-life balancefederal work hoursflexible work arrangements

— 589 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies Alternative View. While metrics on the state of American families and civil soci- ety are important and useful, monthly statistics would be of little additional value and could end up causing unnecessary confusion and concern. Funding should be oriented towards improving the timeliness of annual family statistics. Sabbath Rest. God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers. l Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)9 to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. Houses of worship (to the limited extent they may have FLSA-covered employees) and employers legally required to operate around the clock (such as hospitals and first responders) would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime. Alternative View. While some conservatives believe that the government should encourage certain religious observance by making it more expensive for employers and consumers to not partake in those observances, other conservatives believe that the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them. Whereas imposing overtime rules on the Sab- bath would lead to higher costs and limited access to goods and services and reduce work available on the Sabbath (while also incentivizing some people—through higher wages—to desire to work on the Sabbath), the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations. The result: ample job options that do not require work on the Sabbath so that individuals in roles that sometimes do require Sabbath work are empowered to negotiate directly with their employer to achieve their desired schedule. Teleworking. COVID made telework ubiquitous, but the law and regulations are still stuck in an era when telework was unique. l Congress should clarify that overtime for telework applies only if the employee exceeds 10 hours of work in a specific day (and the total hours for the week exceed 40). — 590 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l DOL should clarify that an employee given the option to telework need only record time if the quantity of work assigned for that day exceeds the usual amount of work that employee performs so that the employee need not track every time he logs in and out and the employer need not do so either. l DOL should clarify that a home office is not subject to OSHA regulations and that time to set up a home office is not compensable time or eligible for overtime calculations. DOL should likewise clarify that reimbursement for home office expenses is not part of an employee’s regular rate, even if those reimbursements are repetitive (such as for internet or cell phone service). Making Family-Sustaining Work Accessible. Our national work ethic is an American hallmark. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “America is the land of labor.” Much of American life is mediated by Americans coming together to take responsi- bility for solving problems and helping their communities. Our labor agenda must allow community institutions, including small businesses, schools and universities, religious organizations, and worker organizations, to thrive. Protect flexible work options and worker independence (independent contractors). Roughly 60 million Americans across all income groups, ages, education levels, races, and household types participate in independent work, including full-time, part-time, or as a “side hustle.” People choose independent work for a variety of reasons, including flexibility, earnings potential, and the desire to be one’s own boss. An economic analysis of data from one million Uber drivers found that they valued the flexibility of the platform at 40 percent of their earnings, and the average Uber driver would not work at all if he or she had to submit to a taxi-cab schedule. The value of flexibility extends beyond ride-sharing and other platform work; more than half of people who did independent work in 2021 said they cannot work a traditional job because of personal or family circumstances such as their health or caring for a child or family member. Independent workers, or contractors, are also critical to entrepreneurship and small-business growth and success. On average, employers with four or fewer employees rely on seven contractors to run their business. Without the ability to hire those contractors, many small businesses could not compete with larger ones that can afford to employ workers in-house. Businesses and workers currently must navigate many different definitions of who is and who is not an employee (or an independent contractor) based on federal and state employment, compensation, tort, tax, and pension laws. This complexity often leads to confusion, improper classification, and costly litigation. The Trump Administration finalized rules to provide clarity on which workers

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 66%

Pages: 670-672AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses TSA employee commuting time under the Department of Homeland Security, whereas the Project 2025 DOT section focuses on railroad safety regulations, MARAD reorganization, and Jones Act reform, with no shared themes or objectives."

— 637 — Department of Transportation to track brake inspections on rolling stock electronically instead of by using paper air brake slips, which would enable extending the interval between brake inspections for trains and eliminating restrictions on the ability to place/remove blocks of cars in trains. l FRA will be proposing certification requirements for dispatchers and signal employees despite the failure of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to identify any safety benefit. l FRA is planning to propose emergency escape breathing apparatus requirements for train crews even though FRA staff long ago concluded that the costs of these requirements would far outweigh their very minimal benefits. It is vital that the integrity of FRA’s research program be preserved. In 2022, FRA switched the management of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, from a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to Ensco, Inc. FRA seems determined to direct research to TTC, even when there are better choices with respect to the research in question, in an effort to support TTC financially and justify its decision to change management at TTC. This change in approach threatens the collaborative approach to research between FRA and the railroads that has existed for decades. FRA should make its decisions on where to spend its research dollars solely on the merits of improving the safety and efficiency of the railroad industry. MARITIME POLICY The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was established by President Harry Truman in 1950 and was transferred to DOT in 1981. A principal function is “main- tain[ing] the overall health of the U.S. Merchant Marine,”15 which is important both to national defense and to foreign and domestic commerce. MARAD is also in charge of the United States Merchant Marine Academy and operates ships and funding for the six state maritime academies. MARAD would be better served by being transferred from DOT to the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS). MARAD is the only DOT modal administration that does not regulate the industry that it represents: The maritime industry is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard (ships and personnel) and by the Federal Mari- time Commission (cargo rates and competitive practices). Furthermore, MARAD has responsibilities both in peacetime commerce and operationally in wartime/crisis sealift through its responsibility to manage the National Defense Reserve Fleet and 45-ship Ready Reserve Force for the U.S. Navy. These missions are unique to MARAD within DOT. As a result, MARAD’s missions — 638 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and purpose, and therefore its funding priorities, are not well understood and his- torically have been minimalized in planning and budgeting. MARAD, including its subordinate Service Academy (the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy) should be transferred to the Department of Defense (if the Coast Guard is located there because DHS has been eliminated) or to the Department of Home- land Security. In this way, the two agencies charged with oversight and regulation of the Maritime sector—MARAD and the United States Coast Guard—would be aligned under the same department where operational efficiencies could be real- ized more easily. Serious consideration should be given to repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act,16 which would require legislation. The economic costs of the Jones Act, which is notionally in place to promote a robust Merchant Marine, vastly exceed its effect on the supply of domestic ships. For instance, no liquified natural gas (LNG) can be shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 states because there are no U.S.-flagged ships that carry LNG. If there are genuine concerns about U.S. fleet capacity in the absence of the Jones Act, it would be possible to do so through an expansion of the Defense Reserve Fleet. Another DHS agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is a frequent user of MARAD Ready Reserve Force shipping during disaster assistance missions. Transferring MARAD to DHS would make coordination and requisition of those vessels a smoother and more rapid process. DHS has responsibility for reviewing and approving Jones Act waivers. This process first requires a market survey of available shipping tonnage that is completed by MARAD. The processing of Jones Act waiver requests would be streamlined if both agencies were in the same department. Finally, DHS as a department is experienced in administering and budgeting for the operation of an existing federal service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, which is similar to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in size. There would be increased efficiencies and better alignment of the missions of these two institutions if they were under one single department that has equity in the industries served by these academies. CONCLUSION Americans need more abundant and affordable transportation. They need more affordable and safer cars as well as physical aspects of transportation such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and rail lines. The Department of Transportation should be evaluating which aspects of transportation are contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the well-being of Americans—and that therefore should continue to be funded. All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of

Department of Transportation

Minimal

Vector: 65%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TSA Commuting Fairness Act focuses on employee commuting time and work conditions for TSA personnel, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, fuel economy standards, and regulatory reform—there is no substantive overlap in themes or objectives."

— 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

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. Kennedy, Timothy M.

To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to link together applications of family members throughout the NEXUS application process, and for other purposes.

119/hr/9382

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1200 William Street, Room 200, in Buffalo, New York, as the William J. Donovan Post Office Building.

119/hr/1706

Weatherizing Infrastructure in the North and Terrorism Emergency Readiness Act of 2025

119/hr/3106

Back to All Bills