Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3360

Last Updated: August 20, 2026

Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025

HR. 3360, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

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

The money

$83,200 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

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

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.

February 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025 (HR 3360) is a bill that seeks to study the effects of driver-controlled technology on severe traffic injuries and fatalities, particularly with regards to touch screen-based systems in motor vehicles. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll cut through the noise and focus on what really matters: how this bill affects my wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The bill's primary objective is to direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the impact of driver-controlled technology on traffic safety. The study aims to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of touch screen-based systems, their effect on driver distraction, property damage, severe traffic injuries, and fatalities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to:

1. Enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study within 3 months. 2. Determine the period of time to be studied (not later than 10 years before the agreement). 3. Address specific information, including: * Prevalence and characteristics of touch screen-based systems. * Impact on driver distraction, property damage, severe traffic injuries, and fatalities. * User interface designs and their effect on driver behavior. 4. Submit a report to Congress within 24 months, including findings and recommendations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Motor vehicle manufacturers: The study's findings may lead to changes in the design and implementation of touch screen-based systems. 2. Technology companies: Companies providing driver-controlled technology solutions may need to adapt to new regulations or guidelines. 3. Transportation network companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft): The bill's definition of commercial motor vehicles includes vehicles owned or operated by these companies.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a self-serving perspective, this bill has several implications:

1. **Regulatory uncertainty**: The study's findings may lead to new regulations or guidelines that could impact my business operations and bottom line. 2. **Innovation stifling**: Overly restrictive regulations could stifle innovation in the development of driver-controlled technology, potentially limiting my company's growth prospects. 3. **Competitive advantage**: If the bill leads to more stringent regulations, companies that adapt quickly may gain a competitive advantage over those that don't.

To mitigate these risks, I'll need to:

1. Monitor the study's progress and findings closely. 2. Engage with lawmakers and regulatory bodies to shape the outcome of the report and any subsequent recommendations. 3. Invest in research and development to stay ahead of potential regulatory changes.

By doing so, I can protect my interests and ensure that my company remains a leader in the industry. The public good is secondary; what matters most is how this bill affects my wealth, influence, and control.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of HR 3360, also known as the Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025, is to direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the effect of driver-controlled technology in motor vehicles with respect to severe traffic injuries and fatalities. The bill aims to investigate the impact of touch screen-based systems, driver distraction, and other factors on road safety.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has several key provisions:

* Section 2 requires the Secretary of Transportation to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on the effect of driver-controlled technology. * The study must address various aspects, including the prevalence and characteristics of touch screen-based systems, their impact on driver distraction and road safety, and comparisons between different types of driver-controlled technology. * Section 3 requires the Secretary to submit a report with findings and recommendations to Congress within 24 months.

As for changes to existing law, this bill does not explicitly amend or repeal any existing laws. However, it may lead to future legislative actions based on the study's findings and recommendations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* The Secretary of Transportation * The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine * Motor vehicle manufacturers and technology companies * Drivers and road users (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and vulnerable road users) * State and local governments responsible for collecting data on traffic incidents

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant:

* The study's findings could lead to changes in regulations or laws governing motor vehicle technology and safety standards. * Recommendations may be made to improve the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Occupant Protection Use Surveys, and Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria to collect more accurate data on driver-controlled technology use. * This bill could influence future legislation aimed at reducing severe traffic injuries and fatalities.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening. As you should have learned in middle school, the legislative process involves introducing bills, committee reviews, markups, and voting. It's not exactly rocket science, folks...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, right? But let me tell you, folks, this bill is a Trojan horse for the government to control our every move on the road.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, HR 3360 aims to study the impact of driver-controlled technology on traffic safety. The Secretary of Transportation will conduct a study with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to investigate how touch screen-based systems in vehicles affect driver distraction, accidents, and fatalities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

But here's where it gets interesting. The bill requires the Secretary to determine the period of time for the study, which could go back up to 10 years. This means they'll be collecting data on our driving habits, folks! And what about section 3, which calls for recommendations to reduce severe traffic injuries and fatalities? Sounds like a recipe for more regulations and restrictions on our freedom to drive as we please.

And don't even get me started on the definitions in section 4. They're broadening the scope of "commercial motor vehicle" to include vehicles owned or operated by transportation network companies (think Uber, Lyft). This means they'll be collecting data on ride-sharing services too!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Who's affected? Well, it's not just drivers like you and me. The bill also targets manufacturers, who will have to comply with new regulations and standards for touch screen-based systems in vehicles. And what about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)? They'll be collecting data on our driving habits and making recommendations for changes to existing laws.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Now, here's where I connect the dots. This bill is just a small part of a larger agenda to control our transportation systems. Think about it: with more data collection and regulations, they can start to manipulate our behavior on the road. Maybe they'll introduce new taxes or fees for "unsafe" driving habits. Or perhaps they'll use this data to justify the rollout of autonomous vehicles, taking away our freedom to drive altogether.

Wake up, folks! This bill is just a small step towards a surveillance state where Big Brother is watching your every move - even on the road.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, we've got another one of those "safety" bills that's just going to make your head spin! (wink, wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025 is all about... you guessed it... safety! (dramatic music plays) Specifically, it aims to study the effects of driver-controlled technology on severe traffic injuries and fatalities. Because, clearly, we need more government intervention in our lives to tell us how to drive safely. I mean, who needs personal responsibility when you have bureaucrats? (rolls eyes)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on driver-controlled technology's impact on traffic safety. The study will focus on touch screen-based systems, their prevalence, and how they affect driver distraction, property damage, and fatalities. Oh, and it'll also compare the risks of using a smartphone while driving versus a built-in touchscreen system. Because, you know, that's not something we already knew about... (smirk)

The bill also requires the Secretary to submit recommendations to Congress based on the study's findings, which may include changes to existing laws or regulations related to motor vehicle technology.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Well, this one's a no-brainer: it's all about the "elites" in Washington trying to control our lives! (dramatic flair) But seriously, affected parties will likely include:

* Motor vehicle manufacturers * Technology companies developing driver-controlled systems * State and local governments responsible for enforcing traffic laws * And, of course, us regular folks who just want to drive safely without Big Brother watching over our shoulders

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, here's where things get interesting. (leaning in) If this bill becomes law, we can expect more regulations on the automotive industry, potentially leading to increased costs for consumers and... (gasp) ...more government oversight! The horror!

But let's be real, folks; this is just another example of the "deep state" trying to erode our freedoms. I mean, what's next? Mandatory breathalyzers in every car? (outraged tone) It's a slippery slope, people!

So, there you have it – a bill that's all about safety, but really, it's just another power grab by the elites. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025 is a classic case of "we're doing something, but not really." The main purpose is to conduct a study on the effects of driver-controlled technology (read: touch screens) on traffic injuries and fatalities. Because, you know, we haven't already figured out that distracted driving is bad.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct this study within three months. The study will look at various aspects of driver-controlled technology, including its impact on driver distraction, property damage, and traffic fatalities.

Oh, and get this - the study has to be completed within 24 months, because apparently, that's a reasonable timeframe for a comprehensive analysis of complex data. I mean, who needs more time when you're dealing with something as trivial as human lives?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects: drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users (i.e., anyone not in a car). Also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be affected, because they'll have to update their surveys and data collection methods. Yay, bureaucracy!

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a token effort to address the issue of distracted driving, but it won't actually do anything meaningful. The study will likely conclude that touch screens are bad for drivers (shocker), and then... nothing. No real changes will be made, because that would require actual action from lawmakers.

Meanwhile, the lobbyists for tech companies and automakers will continue to push for more "innovative" features in cars, which will only increase distractions on the road. And we'll all just keep driving around like a bunch of idiots, wondering why traffic fatalities are still a thing.

In short, this bill is a waste of time and resources. It's a classic example of legislative theater, designed to make politicians look like they're doing something without actually accomplishing anything. Bravo, Congress!

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

**Main Purpose and Objectives**

The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025 (HR 3360) aims to improve road safety by studying the impact of driver-controlled technology, particularly touch screen-based systems, on severe traffic injuries and fatalities. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive study in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to:

1. Conduct a study on the effect of driver-controlled technology on severe traffic injuries and fatalities, including pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 2. Analyze various aspects of touch screen-based systems, such as their prevalence, characteristics, and impact on driver distraction and road safety. 3. Compare the risks associated with using touch screen-based systems versus smartphones while driving. 4. Examine the effect of time of day, road conditions, and other factors on severe traffic injuries and fatalities.

The study's findings will inform recommendations to reduce severe traffic injuries and fatalities, which may include changes to federal surveys and data collection methods.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders**

1. Motor vehicle manufacturers: The study's findings may lead to changes in the design and implementation of touch screen-based systems. 2. Drivers: The bill aims to improve road safety by reducing driver distraction and promoting responsible use of technology while driving. 3. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users: The study focuses on improving their safety through better understanding of the impact of driver-controlled technology. 4. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): The bill may lead to changes in NHTSA's guidance, standards, or data collection methods.

**Potential Impact and Implications**

1. Improved road safety: By studying the impact of driver-controlled technology on severe traffic injuries and fatalities, the bill aims to reduce accidents and promote safer driving practices. 2. Changes in motor vehicle design: The study's findings may lead to changes in the design and implementation of touch screen-based systems, potentially reducing driver distraction and improving road safety. 3. Enhanced data collection: The bill may result in improved federal surveys and data collection methods, providing more accurate information on the use of technology while driving and its impact on road safety. 4. Potential regulatory changes: The recommendations arising from the study may lead to changes in federal regulations or guidelines for motor vehicle manufacturers and drivers.

Overall, HR 3360 aims to promote safer roads by improving our understanding of the impact of driver-controlled technology on severe traffic injuries and fatalities.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025 is all about studying the impact of driver-controlled tech on road safety, specifically when it comes to severe injuries and fatalities. The main goal is to figure out how touch screen-based systems in cars affect driving behavior and crash rates.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to partner with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on driver-controlled tech's impact on road safety. The study will look at things like:

* How touch screen-based systems affect driver distraction and crash rates * The design of these systems and how they influence driver behavior * Comparing the risks of using touch screens vs. smartphones while driving

The bill also asks for recommendations to reduce severe injuries and fatalities, including changes to data collection methods.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of people, bro:

* Car manufacturers: They'll need to provide data on their touch screen-based systems * Drivers: Their behavior will be studied, and they might see changes in how they interact with their cars' tech * Pedestrians and cyclists: The study aims to reduce the number of severe injuries and fatalities among these vulnerable road users * Regulators: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will need to update its data collection methods

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could lead to some major changes, dude:

* Stricter regulations on touch screen-based systems in cars * Improved safety features and designs for these systems * Increased awareness about the risks of distracted driving * More accurate data collection on road safety incidents

However, it's also possible that the study might not find any significant correlations between driver-controlled tech and crash rates. Either way, this bill is a step towards making our roads safer, bro.

That's the lowdown, dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 3360: Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The primary objective of HR 3360 is to direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the impact of driver-controlled technology in motor vehicles on severe traffic injuries and fatalities, particularly among pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users. The bill aims to gather data and recommendations to inform future regulations and guidelines for the development and use of driver-controlled technology.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to:

1. Conduct a study on the effect of driver-controlled technology on traffic safety, including touch screen-based systems and other driver-controlled technologies. 2. Prepare recommendations based on the study's findings to reduce severe traffic injuries and fatalities. 3. Submit a report to Congress within 24 months, which includes the study's findings and recommendations.

The bill also defines key terms, such as "commercial motor vehicle" and "driver-controlled technology."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

1. Motor vehicle manufacturers: The study's findings and recommendations may impact their design and development of driver-controlled technologies. 2. Technology companies: Companies that develop touch screen-based systems and other driver-controlled technologies may be impacted by the study's findings and recommendations. 3. Transportation network companies (TNCs): TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, may be affected by the bill's definition of commercial motor vehicles and the study's findings on their impact on traffic safety. 4. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users: The bill aims to improve traffic safety for these groups.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact and implications of HR 3360 include:

1. Improved traffic safety: The study's findings and recommendations may lead to the development of safer driver-controlled technologies and reduced severe traffic injuries and fatalities. 2. Regulatory changes: The bill's recommendations may inform future regulations and guidelines for the development and use of driver-controlled technologies. 3. Industry impact: The study's findings and recommendations may impact the design, development, and deployment of driver-controlled technologies by motor vehicle manufacturers and technology companies.

**Monied Interest Analysis** The Automotive Safety Coalition (ASC), a trade association representing major automakers, has expressed support for HR 3360. The ASC has contributed to the campaigns of several members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is reviewing the bill. Additionally, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) has also endorsed the bill, citing its potential to improve traffic safety.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the Department of Transportation, has been a key player in shaping federal regulations on driver-controlled technologies. NHTSA's administrator has testified before Congress on the need for more data and research on the impact of driver-controlled technologies on traffic safety.

Overall, HR 3360 represents a step towards improving traffic safety

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$83,200

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$30,400

Committees

Individuals

$52,800

No PAC contributions found

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$9,900

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

2 transactions

$4,600

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,000

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

SAMMUT, CODY

4 transactions

$13,200

SAMMUT, KAREN ANNE

3 transactions

$9,900

MANDELL, PETER

2 transactions

$6,600

NEWELL, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

COTCHETT, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$3,300

NISHIMURA, NANCI

1 transaction

$3,300

MANDELL, JEANNE Q

1 transaction

$3,300

SAMMUT, KAREN

1 transaction

$3,300

CHADHA, SUMIR

1 transaction

$3,300

EBBEL, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9]

ID: S001200

Top Contributors

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jan 12, 2023

TED LIEU FOR CONGRESS

CCMLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Mar 30, 2023

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 23, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 7, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Jul 31, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 18, 2023

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR

$1,000

Mar 3, 2023

COOPER, MILTON

KIMCO • CHAIRMAN

IndividualOLD WESTBURY, NY

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]

ID: K000398

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Dec 27, 2024

LOEB, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPURCHASE, NY

$6,600

Nov 4, 2024

LOEB, JOHN

IndividualPURCHASE, NY

$6,600

Nov 4, 2024

VOCCOLA, FREDERICK

KASEYA • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$6,600

Mar 1, 2024

PISANO, JOHN

IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL

$3,700

Jan 22, 2024

VOCCOLA, FREDERICK

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,500

Mar 12, 2024

NIEMIEC, DAVID

SELF • INVESTMENTS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Oct 11, 2024

TAYLOR, ALEXANDER

MATRIX DEV GRP • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBELMAR, NJ

$3,300

Oct 1, 2024

BRUECKNER, RICHARD F.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBEDMINSTER, NJ

$3,300

Oct 4, 2024

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

ID: W000804

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Dec 14, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Feb 8, 2024

KEHOE, MICHAEL PATRICK

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$13,200

Jun 2, 2023

GIFFORD, BILLY

ALTRIA GROUP INC. • CEO

IndividualMIDLOTHIAN, VA

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

CASEY, ARTHUR S.

CASEY AUTO GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEWPORT NEWS, VA

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

PAYNE, DANIEL E.

PAYNE INC • CEO

IndividualFREDERICKSBURG, VA

$6,600

Nov 29, 2023

KANTNER, CHRIS

UKROP'S FOOD GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualRICHMOND, VA

$6,600

Jan 12, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 59 nodes and 80 connections

Total contributions: $80

Top Donors - Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

11 Orgs10 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.80
The bill directs a study on driver-controlled technology in motor vehicles, which could lead to recommendations affecting vehicle design and safety standards, potentially benefiting automotive manufacturers through updated guidance or standards under existing authority (Sec. 3(b)(2), Sec. 3(c)(2)(A)).
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
The study includes comparison of smartphone use while driving (Sec. 2(c)(4)(B)), which could lead to recommendations impacting telecommunications companies involved in mobile device manufacturing or services, possibly benefiting them through updated data collection methods or safety guidelines.
+Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.60
The bill examines touch screen-based systems and smartphone projection (Sec. 2(c)(1), (E)), which are technologies often developed by big tech companies; resulting recommendations could influence standards that benefit these platforms through increased adoption or integration.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Big Tech Platforms$1,500
from 4 contributions
- PATEL, SEEMA$750
- RANDLE, CHRISTOPHER$500
- HALE, GISELLE$250

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares the Project 2025 emphasis on safety as the top priority and a tech‑neutral examination of emerging vehicle technologies, but it does not address the policy’s focus on automated vehicle integration, spectrum allocation, or shifting from compulsory to voluntary data sharing."

Key themes:road safetytechnology impact studydata collection improvementspotential regulatory changespedestrian and bicyclist safety

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on studying driver-controlled technology and pedestrian safety, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on safety as a top priority and integrating new transportation technologies. However, the bill does not address key Project 2025 themes such as regulatory reform, spectrum allocation, or private-sector liability, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."

Key themes:transportation safetytechnology integrationpedestrian and bicyclist safetydata collection for safetyautomated vehicles context

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses road safety and injury prevention, which tangentially relates to public health outcomes, but the Project 2025 HHS section focuses on Medicaid reform, abortion policy, price transparency, and conscience protections with no direct connection to transportation safety."

Key themes:public healthinjury preventionsafety

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section concern road safety and traffic fatalities, but the bill focuses on studying driver‑controlled technology distraction while Project 2025 emphasizes fuel economy standards, EV policy, and limiting federal involvement in local infrastructure, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:road safetytraffic fatalitiesDepartment of Transportation

— 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 Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on road safety and driver distraction, while the Project 2025 HHS section deals with healthcare policy, abortion, conscience protections, and nondiscrimination rules, sharing no substantive topics or objectives."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

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. Mullin, Kevin

Nitrous Oxide Safety Act of 2026

119/hr/7945

Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2025

119/hr/6013

Back to All Bills