Trucker Bathroom Access Act

— 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

— 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

— 640 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2023 Budget Highlights, p. 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot. gov/files/2022-03/Budget_Highlights_FY2023.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] Strategic Plan FY22– FY26, p. 2, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-09/DOT%20DEIA%20Strategic%20Plan. pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 3. 23 U.S. Code §§ 601–609, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23 (accessed March 3, 2023). 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 248 (December 27, 2019), pp. 71714–71734, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/361831/fed-reg-published-final-admin- rule.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Build America Bureau, “About the Build America Bureau,” last updated October 24, 2022, https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/about (accessed March 3, 2023). 6. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law No. 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1995, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 7. 42 U.S. Code Chapter 85, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-85 (accessed March 3, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 84 (May 2, 2022), pp. 25710–26092, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05- 02/pdf/2022-07200.pdf (accessed March 10, 2023). 9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 235 (December 7, 2020), pp. 78707–78718, https://www.transportation.gov/ sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/Defining%20Unfair%20or%20Deceptive%20Practices%20Final%20Rule%20-%20 85%20FR%2078707.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Procedures in Regulating Unfair or Deceptive Practices,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 22 (February 2, 2022), pp. 5655–5659, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-02/pdf/2022-01589.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2023, p. 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/FAA_Budget_Estimates_FY2023.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 12. Robert W. Poole, Jr., Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control, Hudson Institute Initiative on Future Innovation, November 2013, https://www.hudson.org/sites/default/files/researchattachments/ attachment/1199/poole_hi_res.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). Also published subsequently as Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 431, January 2014, https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/air_traffic_ control_organization_innovation.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 13. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 14. S. 6, Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Public Law 88-365, 88th Congress, July 9, 1964, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg302-2.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, “About Us,” last updated March 23, 2022, https:// www.maritime.dot.gov/about-us (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. H.R. 10378, Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Public Law 66-261, 66th Congress, June 5, 1920, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/41/STATUTE-41-Pg988.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). — 641 — 20 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Brooks D. Tucker MISSION STATEMENT The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the primary provider of health care, benefits, and memorial affairs for America’s veterans and their families. The VA has the noble responsibility to render exceptional and timely support and services with respect, compassion, and competence. The veteran is at the forefront of every VA process and interaction. The VA must continually strive to be recognized as a “best in class,” “Veteran-centric”1 system with an organizational ethos inspired by and accountable to the needs and problems of veterans, not subservient to the parochial preferences of a bureaucracy. OVERVIEW At the end of the Obama Administration, the VA was held in low esteem both by the veterans it served and by the employees who served these former warriors. Eroding morale caused by the downstream effects of a health care access crisis in 2014 led to the resignation of Secretary Eric Shinseki and extensive oversight investigations by Congress from 2015–2016. By 2020, however, the VA had become one of the most respected U.S. agencies. This significant progress was due in part to the leadership of Secretary Robert Wilkie (2018–2021) and his team of political appointees and career senior executives, many of them veterans, who led the effort to ensure that the VA became “Veteran-centric” in its governance decisions and fostered a more positive work environment. This mindset translated into a department that was better attuned to employees’ and veterans’ needs and experiences in the daily operations of health care, benefits,