Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12]
ID: W000822
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Introduced
đź“Ť 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
đź“š 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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule Act - because what this country really needs is a time capsule to commemorate its own self-importance.
Let's dissect this farce:
**New regulations being created or modified:** None, actually. This bill creates a time capsule, which is essentially a fancy box with some trinkets and papers inside. It's a symbolic gesture, not an actual policy change.
**Affected industries and sectors:** Zero. Unless you count the time capsule industry, which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist. Maybe some poor soul will get a contract to build the thing, but that's about it.
**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Oh boy, this is where it gets exciting! The Architect of the Capitol has to create the time capsule by July 4th, 2026. That's a whole year and a half to design and build... a box. I'm sure it'll be a thrilling process.
**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ha! There aren't any. This bill is all about feel-good nonsense, not actual governance. Who needs accountability when you're creating a time capsule?
**Economic and operational impacts:** Zilch. This bill won't create jobs, stimulate the economy, or improve anyone's life in any meaningful way. It's a PR stunt, plain and simple.
Now, let's get to the real diagnosis:
This bill is a symptom of **Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder (LADD)** - a condition where politicians focus on trivialities instead of actual problems. The sponsors of this bill are suffering from a bad case of LADD, and their treatment plan involves creating a time capsule that will be forgotten in 250 years.
The real motivation behind this bill? **Ego-stroking**. Politicians want to leave their mark on history, no matter how insignificant it may be. They're more concerned with being remembered than actually doing something worthwhile.
In conclusion, the Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule Act is a pointless exercise in self-aggrandizement. It's a waste of time, money, and resources. But hey, at least it'll make for a nice photo op on July 4th, 2026.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12]
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
ID: S000168
Top Contributors
23
Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3]
ID: E000296
Top Contributors
85
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]
ID: A000055
Top Contributors
23
Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]
ID: C001133
Top Contributors
30
Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
ID: T000486
Top Contributors
95
Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1]
ID: D000230
Top Contributors
149
Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]
ID: C001061
Top Contributors
22
Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]
ID: M001136
Top Contributors
46
Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]
ID: B001296
Top Contributors
21
Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]
ID: M001229
Top Contributors
23
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
Introduction
— 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA); — 621 — Department of Transportation l Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS); l Maritime Administration (MARAD); l Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and l Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). DOT’s fundamental problem is that instead of being able to focus on providing Americans with affordable and abundant transportation, it has become saddled with congressional requirements that reduce the department to a de facto grant- making organization. Yet there is little need for much of this grantmaking, for two reasons: l New technology enables private companies to charge for transportation in many areas, which could transform how innovation is financed. It is vital to consider the role of user fees and other pricing innovations with regard to transportation infrastructure. Airport landing fees for aircraft, toll charges on roads and bridges, and per-gallon taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are all examples of user charges that affect the decisions of transportation system users. These changes could shift our nation’s transportation away from being a top–down system that is misaligned with the needs of so many Americans. Increasing private-sector financing could revolutionize travel and increase everyday mobility to its greatest potential in a way that Americans prefer. Doing so would keep transportation decisions out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who are far removed from local problems and preferences. l If funding must be federal, it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best. Such an approach would enable states to prioritize different types of transportation according to the needs of their citizens. States that rely more on automotive transportation, for example, could use their funding to meet those needs. Meanwhile, many Americans continue to confront serious challenges with their day-to-day transportation, including costs that have increased dramati- cally in recent years. DOT in its current form is insufficiently equipped to address those problems. DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abol- ished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states, which know best their transportation needs and are incentivized to think of the
Introduction
— ix — Acknowledgments This work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a col- lective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America. Our work is by no means the comprehensive compendium of conservative policies, nor is our group the exclusive cadre of conservative thinkers. The ideas expressed in this volume are not necessarily shared by all. What unites us is the drive to make our country better. First and foremost, we thank the chapter authors and contributors who gave so freely of their time in service of their country. We were particularly grateful to have the help of dedicated members of The Heritage Foundation’s management and policy teams. Executive Vice President Derrick Morgan, Chief of Staff Wesley Coopersmith, Associate Director of Project 2025 Spencer Chretien, and Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies Director Paul Ray devoted a significant amount of their valuable time to reviewing and editing the lengthy manuscript and provided expert advice and insight. The job of transforming the work of dozens of authors and hundreds of contributors into a cohesive manuscript fell upon Heritage’s formidable team of editors led by Director of Research Editors Therese Pennefather, Senior Editor William T. Poole, Marla Hess, Jessica Lowther, Karina Rollins, and Kathleen Scaturro, without whose tireless efforts you would not be reading these words. The talented work of Data Graphics Services Manager John Fleming, Manager of Web Development and Print Projects Jay Simon, Director of Marketing Elizabeth Fender, Senior Graphic Designer Grace Desandro, and Senior Designer Melissa Bluey came together to bring the volume to life. We also thank the dedicated junior staff who provided immeasurable assistance, especially Jordan Embree, Sarah Calvis, and Jonathan Moy. Most important, we are grateful to the leadership, supporters, and donors of each of the Project 2025 advisory board member organizations and those of The Heritage Foundation, without whom Project 2025 would not be possible. Thank you. Paul Dans & Steven Groves
Introduction
— ix — Acknowledgments This work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a col- lective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America. Our work is by no means the comprehensive compendium of conservative policies, nor is our group the exclusive cadre of conservative thinkers. The ideas expressed in this volume are not necessarily shared by all. What unites us is the drive to make our country better. First and foremost, we thank the chapter authors and contributors who gave so freely of their time in service of their country. We were particularly grateful to have the help of dedicated members of The Heritage Foundation’s management and policy teams. Executive Vice President Derrick Morgan, Chief of Staff Wesley Coopersmith, Associate Director of Project 2025 Spencer Chretien, and Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies Director Paul Ray devoted a significant amount of their valuable time to reviewing and editing the lengthy manuscript and provided expert advice and insight. The job of transforming the work of dozens of authors and hundreds of contributors into a cohesive manuscript fell upon Heritage’s formidable team of editors led by Director of Research Editors Therese Pennefather, Senior Editor William T. Poole, Marla Hess, Jessica Lowther, Karina Rollins, and Kathleen Scaturro, without whose tireless efforts you would not be reading these words. The talented work of Data Graphics Services Manager John Fleming, Manager of Web Development and Print Projects Jay Simon, Director of Marketing Elizabeth Fender, Senior Graphic Designer Grace Desandro, and Senior Designer Melissa Bluey came together to bring the volume to life. We also thank the dedicated junior staff who provided immeasurable assistance, especially Jordan Embree, Sarah Calvis, and Jonathan Moy. Most important, we are grateful to the leadership, supporters, and donors of each of the Project 2025 advisory board member organizations and those of The Heritage Foundation, without whom Project 2025 would not be possible. Thank you. Paul Dans & Steven Groves — xi — The Project 2025 Advisory Board Alabama Policy Institute Alliance Defending Freedom American Compass The American Conservative America First Legal Foundation American Accountability Foundation American Center for Law and Justice American Cornerstone Institute American Council of Trustees and Alumni American Legislative Exchange Council The American Main Street Initiative American Moment American Principles Project Center for Equal Opportunity Center for Family and Human Rights Center for Immigration Studies Center for Renewing America Claremont Institute Coalition for a Prosperous America Competitive Enterprise Institute Conservative Partnership Institute Concerned Women for America Defense of Freedom Institute Ethics and Public Policy Center Family Policy Alliance Family Research Council First Liberty Institute Forge Leadership Network Foundation for Defense of Democracies Foundation for Government Accountability FreedomWorks The Heritage Foundation Hillsdale College Honest Elections Project
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.