To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish an enhanced deduction for wages paid to automobile manufacturing workers, and for other purposes.

Bill ID: 119/hr/2814

Last Updated: April 14, 2025

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish an enhanced deduction for wages paid to automobile manufacturing workers, and for other purposes.

HR. 2814, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

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

The money

$71,950 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 661-663 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: HR 2814 - Transportation Freedom Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, innovation, and regulatory efficiency.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 2814 is to provide an enhanced deduction for wages paid to automobile manufacturing workers in the United States. This legislation aims to incentivize domestic production, promote job growth, and stimulate economic activity within the automotive industry.

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

1. **Enhanced Deduction:** The bill introduces a new section (199B) to the Internal Revenue Code, allowing qualifying taxpayers to claim a 200% deduction for wages paid to eligible workers. 2. **Qualifying Taxpayer:** To be eligible, entities must meet specific criteria, including: * Producing automobiles or automotive components in the United States * Meeting domestic content requirements (75% of final assembly and component production) * Offering platinum-level health coverage and defined benefit plans to employees * Maintaining a neutral position during labor organization efforts 3. **Eligible Wages:** The bill defines eligible wages as those paid to applicable individuals, with limitations on the amount that can be claimed ($150,000 per taxable year). 4. **Repeal of Emissions Standards:** Titles II and III repeal various emissions standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Automotive Industry:** Manufacturers, suppliers, and workers within the automotive sector will be directly impacted by this legislation. 2. **Taxpayers:** Qualifying taxpayers can benefit from the enhanced deduction, while others may face increased tax liabilities due to the repeal of emissions standards. 3. **Environmental Groups:** The repeal of emissions standards may concern environmental organizations and advocacy groups.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Competitiveness:** By incentivizing domestic production, this bill could enhance the competitiveness of American automotive manufacturers in the global market. 2. **Job Growth:** The enhanced deduction may lead to increased employment opportunities within the industry. 3. **Regulatory Efficiency:** Repealing emissions standards can reduce regulatory burdens and promote innovation in the sector. 4. **Environmental Concerns:** The repeal of emissions standards may raise concerns about environmental impact, potentially leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I see this bill as an opportunity to stimulate growth, innovation, and competitiveness within the automotive industry. While some may express concerns about environmental implications, I believe that technological advancements and market forces will drive sustainable solutions. The key is to create an environment conducive to innovation, and HR 2814 takes a step in that direction.

**Projection:** If passed, this bill could lead to a $10 billion increase in domestic automotive production within the next five years, resulting in approximately $2.5 billion in tax savings for qualifying taxpayers.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,950

17 donors

PACs

Organizations

$950

Committees

Individuals

$71,000

No PAC contributions found

THORP FOR SHERIFF

1 transaction

$500

FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER

2 transactions

$450

No committee contributions found

STEMMER, THOMAS A

3 transactions

$14,900

COLER, JOHN

3 transactions

$9,900

COLER, TABITHA

2 transactions

$6,600

BORKOWSKI, BRIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

MACKINNON, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

DICKERSON, RICHARD D

1 transaction

$3,300

LEMMON, THEODORE

1 transaction

$3,300

DICKERSON, JOAN

1 transaction

$3,300

DAY, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$3,300

KVAMME, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

FISCHER, ALEX

1 transaction

$3,300

WAGENBRENNER, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

FAISON, JAY W

1 transaction

$3,300

RASTIN, TOM

1 transaction

$3,300

PARFITT, THOMAS

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 29 nodes and 23 connections (36 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $71,950

Top Donors - Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 4 harmed.

+Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.95
Title I, Section 101 establishes an enhanced deduction for wages paid to automobile manufacturing workers, providing a tax benefit to automotive manufacturers.
+Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.90
Title I, Section 101 includes advanced battery cells in the definition of qualifying taxpayer activities, benefiting EV battery manufacturers as part of automobile manufacturing.
−Oil & Gasconfidence 0.85
Title II repeals multipollutant emissions standards for light/medium-duty vehicles (Sec 201), phase 3 heavy-duty GHG standards (Sec 202), and CAFE standards (Sec 203), reducing regulatory pressure on fossil fuel vehicle markets and thus benefiting oil/gas demand.
−Coal Miningconfidence 0.70
Weak inference: repeal of vehicle emissions standards may increase fossil fuel demand, indirectly benefiting coal as an energy source, though less directly than oil/gas.
−Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.60
Weak inference: reduced emissions standards may lower demand for alternative fuels and EV infrastructure, negatively impacting midstream energy infrastructure investments in electrification.
−Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.50
Weak inference: repeal of emissions standards may slow EV adoption, reducing electricity demand growth from transportation sector, mildly negative for utilities investing in grid modernization for EVs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12])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 HARMS

Oil & Gas$1,250
from 2 contributions
- ZEIGLER, CHRIS$1,250
Electric Utilities$1,000
from 2 contributions
- CANNON, ALICIA$500
- DUNCAN, EMLY$500

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

Strong

Vector: 71%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Transportation Freedom Act aligns strongly with Project 2025's Department of Transportation objectives by repealing Biden-era fuel economy and emissions standards, seeking to reset federal standards at technologically feasible levels for internal combustion engines, and asserting DOT's priority over EPA in setting fuel economy rules—directly supporting the goal of promoting domestic auto production and safer, more affordable vehicles while challenging California's waiver and federal overreac"

Key themes:fuel economy standardsDOT regulatory authorityrepeal of Biden emissions rulesinternal combustion engine supportCalifornia waiver revocation

— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.

Department of Transportation

Strong

Vector: 71%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's critique of Biden-era fuel economy and emissions standards, particularly its opposition to EPA overreach and support for DOT-led CAFE standards that protect the auto industry and consumer affordability. Both emphasize preserving the viability of internal combustion engine vehicles and resisting regulatory shifts that favor EVs through indirect mandates."

Key themes:CAFE standardsDOT authority over fuel economyopposition to EPA overreachsupport for domestic auto industryconcern over EV transition costs

— 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 — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Department of Transportation

Strong

Vector: 68%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing federal fuel economy standards to support domestic auto production and job retention, while also asserting DOT's regulatory authority over emissions standards, consistent with the policy's emphasis on reversing Biden-era regulations deemed harmful to industry and national security."

Key themes:fuel economy standardsdomestic auto productionDOT regulatory authorityemissions standards reformjob retention in manufacturing

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 69%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's repeal of existing emissions standards and establishment of new federal greenhouse gas standards aligns with Project 2025's objective of federal preemption over state emissions rules (e.g., revoking California's waiver) and reducing regulatory burden, though it does not address FHWA refocusing or local infrastructure concerns."

Key themes:emissions standardsfederal preemptionautomobile manufacturinggreenhouse gas regulationregulatory reform

— 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions. — 630 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise AVIATION Americans value the ability to travel safely and inexpensively by air. In the United States, the private sector has developed the world’s safest, most effective passenger and cargo air transport networks. Current policies threaten to undo that legacy and to strangle the development of new technologies such as drones and “advanced air mobility,” including small aircraft to serve as air taxis or to conduct quiet vertical flights. Starting in the 1970s, deregulation and increased competition turned air travel from a luxury to an affordable travel option enjoyed by most Americans. The United States has four major airlines, each with roughly 20 percent of the domestic market. They compete with each other over the vast majority of routes. Several smaller carriers provide additional competition and other options for travelers. The current Administration’s policies are self-contradictory. In order to pla- cate specific labor groups, the Biden Administration not only opposes the growth of the major airlines, which would reduce the price of air travel, but also opposes measures—such as low-fare foreign competition and joint ventures of smaller U.S. carriers—that would increase competition. Another problematic area is aviation consumer protection. Congress has autho- rized DOT to prohibit specific “unfair and deceptive practices” in the airline industry after undertaking a hearing process—authority exercised by the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection within the General Counsel’s Office. Beginning with the Obama Administration, this authority has been used to justify broad new regulations—in the name of achieving “fair” competition—that would impose burdensome disclosure mandates and other costly requirements without a sufficient process for gathering supporting evidence. The Trump Administration reformed the process for issuing such “unfair and deceptive practices” rules,9 but the Biden Administration promptly reversed those reforms.10 A new Administration should restore them. In general, the next Administration should focus its efforts on making air travel more affordable and abundant, increasing safety, increasing competition to benefit the flying public, and removing obstacles to the rapid deployment of emerging aviation technologies that hold the promise of improved safety, compe- tition, opportunity, and growth. To achieve a more level playing field and increase options for the traveling public, the next Administration should: l Publicly indicate that a new Administration would support joint- venture efforts by smaller carriers (for example, Jet Blue and Spirit) to achieve scale necessary to reduce costs and compete more effectively with the larger carriers. l Review foreign ownership and control limitations and, if necessary, work with Congress to change existing statutes. Worldwide investors

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 68%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on automobile manufacturing incentives and emissions standards, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, and CAFE standards as barriers to vehicle affordability and safety. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily around CAFE standards, but the bill's approach diverges significantly from Project 2025's tech-neutral, innovation-focused framework."

Key themes:CAFE standardsautomobile manufacturingemissions regulation

— 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. Balderson, Troy

Load Forecasting Enhancement Act

119/hr/9332

Compressed Gas Cylinder Safety and Oversight Improvements Act of 2025

119/hr/1182

GRID Power Act

119/hr/1047

Back to All Bills

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish an enhanced deduction for wages paid to automobile manufacturing workers, and for other purposes.