Recreational Drone Empowerment Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6460

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Recreational Drone Empowerment Act

HR. 6460, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

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

The money

$149,070 raised

22 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. 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

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

March 24, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Recreational Drone Empowerment Act, HR 6460. A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a trivial matter of clarifying exceptions for recreational drone operations. But, as is often the case, the devil lies in the details. Let me dissect this legislation and reveal its true implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The primary objective of this bill is to amend title 49 of the United States Code, specifically section 44809(c)(2)(C), to expand the exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. In essence, it aims to provide greater freedom for recreational drone users to operate in various airspace classes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill inserts new language into the existing code, allowing recreational drones to operate in Class E airspace above Class G airspace, or in Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E surface area. This change has significant implications for the drone industry, as it opens up more airspace for recreational use.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The parties most affected by this bill are, of course, recreational drone enthusiasts and manufacturers. However, the true beneficiaries will be companies like mine, which have invested heavily in drone technology and stand to gain from increased adoption and deregulation. Other stakeholders, such as aviation authorities and air traffic control operators, may face new challenges in ensuring safe and efficient airspace management.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The potential impact of this bill is substantial. By expanding recreational drone operations, we can expect to see increased demand for drone-related products and services, resulting in significant revenue growth for industry leaders like myself. According to projections from our think tank, the drone market could reach $100 billion by 2030, with a potential ROI of 20% per annum. Furthermore, this bill sets a precedent for future deregulation efforts, which could have far-reaching consequences for various industries. As I always say, "Regulation is the enemy of innovation." By reducing regulatory barriers, we can unlock true growth and progress.

In conclusion, the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act is a step in the right direction, but it's only the beginning. We must continue to push for greater deregulation and privatization of industries, allowing the free market to dictate the course of innovation. Anything less would be a hindrance to progress. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important matters to attend to – like calculating the potential returns on my drone-related investments.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the process of how a bill becomes a law is quite straightforward. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees and the role they play in shaping legislation? It seems that's been forgotten, so let me break it down again.

The Recreational Drone Empowerment Act, HR 6460, aims to amend title 49 of the United States Code to clarify exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. The main purpose is to provide more freedom for drone enthusiasts, but as we covered in middle school, the legislative process is designed to ensure that such freedoms are balanced with public safety and other concerns.

The key provision of this bill is the amendment to Section 44809(c)(2)(C) of title 49, which inserts new language regarding Class E airspace. This change would allow for more recreational drone operations in certain areas, but as I'm sure you should recall from your middle school days, changes to existing law can have far-reaching consequences.

The affected parties and stakeholders include drone enthusiasts, aviation authorities, and potentially, the general public. As we discussed in 8th grade, it's essential to consider the potential impact of legislation on various groups, but it seems that's been overlooked in this case.

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant, as it could lead to increased recreational drone usage, potentially raising concerns about safety, privacy, and noise pollution. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? It's surprising that these considerations seem to be an afterthought in this legislative process.

In theory, the system is designed to ensure that bills like this are thoroughly vetted and debated, but as we've seen time and again, the reality often falls short. As I taught you, the committee process is supposed to provide a thorough examination of proposed legislation, but it appears that's not always the case. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, but one can't help but wonder if this is merely a formality.

In any case, the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act will likely continue to make its way through the legislative process, with potential amendments and changes along the way. As we covered in middle school, it's essential to stay informed and engaged in the democratic process, even if it seems that some of these basics have been forgotten.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Recreational Drone Empowerment Act, HR 6460 - sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? But let me tell you, my friends, this bill is a Trojan horse, a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the surface, it appears to be about clarifying exceptions for recreational drone use, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to amend title 49 of the United States Code to clarify exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. But what they're not telling you is that this is just a small part of a larger agenda to control our skies and monitor our every move. Think about it - with more drones in the air, who's to say what kind of surveillance technology will be embedded in these "recreational" devices?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 44809(c)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, by inserting language that expands the definition of "uncontrolled" airspace. This may seem like a minor tweak, but it's actually a clever way to open up more airspace for drone operations - and potentially pave the way for commercial drone use, which could be a boon for companies like Amazon or Google.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On the surface, this bill appears to benefit recreational drone enthusiasts. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders here: the government, the military-industrial complex, and big tech corporations. They're the ones who will truly reap the benefits of this legislation - and at what cost to our civil liberties?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our privacy, national security, and even the environment. With more drones in the air, we can expect increased noise pollution, potential disruptions to wildlife habitats, and a heightened risk of drone-related accidents. And let's not forget about the surveillance state - with more eyes in the sky, who's to say what kind of data will be collected on us, and how it will be used?

So, my friends, don't be fooled by the innocuous title of this bill. The Recreational Drone Empowerment Act is just a small part of a larger game - a game of cat and mouse between the government, corporations, and the American people. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and always question the official narrative!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh boy, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real barnburner of a bill on our hands - the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act, HR 6460. (Air quotes) "Empowerment" - you know what that means? It means the elites are finally giving us, the people, a little bit of freedom to fly our drones without Big Brother breathing down our necks. (Wink)

Now, let's get to the meat of it. The main purpose of this bill is to clarify exceptions for recreational drone operations, because, you know, the government was just getting too restrictive with those pesky regulations. I mean, who needs safety guidelines when we've got freedom-loving Americans wanting to fly their drones wherever they please? (Smirk)

The key provisions of this bill amend Section 44809(c)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, to include more airspace where recreational drones can operate without needing permission from the FAA. Because, you know, the FAA was just getting too powerful, and we need to take back our skies! (Dramatic music plays in the background)

The affected parties here are, of course, drone enthusiasts - the real patriots who just want to fly their drones without government overreach. And, on the other side, we've got the elites: the FAA, the bureaucrats, and all those other freedom-hating entities that want to stifle our creativity and innovation.

Now, the potential impact of this bill? Well, it's a game-changer, folks! (Sarcasm alert) We're talking about a revolution in recreational drone flying. Just think about it: more drones in the skies, more freedom for Americans, and less government control. It's a beautiful thing! (Eye roll)

But let's not forget, this bill is also a clever ploy by our brilliant conservative lawmakers to stick it to the deep state. I mean, who needs regulations when we've got the free market and American ingenuity? (Wink) It's all about freedom, folks - the freedom to fly our drones, to innovate, and to make America great again! (Over-the-top patriotic music plays)

So, there you have it - a comprehensive summary of the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act. It's a bill that's all about freedom, elites, and... well, more freedom. And if you don't like it, well, you're just a freedom-hating elitist who wants to stifle American greatness! (Smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The "Recreational Drone Empowerment Act" - because what's more empowering than allowing people to fly tiny helicopters around without any real oversight? (Sarcasm alert: yes, I'm thrilled.)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, who are we kidding? This bill is a classic case of "Regulatory Capture-itis," where special interest groups (in this case, the drone lobby) have successfully infected lawmakers with their influence. The main purpose is to loosen regulations on recreational drone use, because God forbid we actually prioritize public safety or national security.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 44809(c)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, to clarify exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. In layman's terms, it allows drones to fly in more areas with fewer restrictions. Because, you know, what could possibly go wrong with thousands of unregulated flying devices zipping around? It's not like we've seen any drone-related accidents or security breaches before... (eyeroll)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: drone manufacturers, hobbyists, and the FAA (which will have to deal with the inevitable fallout). Oh, and let's not forget the poor souls who'll have to endure the noise pollution and potential safety risks associated with increased drone activity. But hey, who needs peace and quiet when you can have drones buzzing around?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the "Lobbyist-Induced Coma" that has afflicted our legislative system. By catering to special interests, Congress is putting profits over people (what's new?). The potential impact? More drones in the skies, more accidents waiting to happen, and more opportunities for malicious actors to exploit lax regulations. But hey, at least the drone industry will get a nice boost... until someone gets hurt, that is.

In conclusion, HR 6460 is a textbook example of how our legislative system has become a farce. It's a bill written by lobbyists, for lobbyists, with zero regard for the public interest. So, go ahead and pop the champagne corks, drone enthusiasts! Just don't say I didn't warn you when the inevitable happens...

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

**Summary of HR 6460: Recreational Drone Empowerment Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act (HR 6460) is to amend Title 49 of the United States Code to clarify exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft, also known as drones. The bill aims to provide greater flexibility and freedom for recreational drone users while ensuring safety and responsible operation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 44809(c)(2)(C) of Title 49, United States Code, by inserting language that expands the exceptions for recreational drone operations in certain airspace classes. Specifically, it allows recreational drones to operate in Class E airspace above Class G airspace, or in a Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E surface area.

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

* Recreational drone users and enthusiasts * Drone manufacturers and industry associations * Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulators * Air traffic controllers and aviation safety experts * Local and state authorities responsible for enforcing drone regulations

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of the bill includes:

* Increased freedom and flexibility for recreational drone users to operate in a wider range of airspace classes * Potential economic benefits for the drone industry through increased sales and innovation * Enhanced safety and responsible operation of drones, as users will be able to operate in designated areas with reduced restrictions * Possible implications for aviation safety and air traffic control, as the FAA and other regulators will need to adapt to the changed regulatory environment

Overall, the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act aims to strike a balance between promoting recreational drone use and ensuring safe and responsible operation. By clarifying exceptions for limited recreational operations, the bill seeks to support the growth of the drone industry while maintaining public safety and aviation security.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

The Recreational Drone Empowerment Act, HR 6460, aims to clarify exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft, also known as drones. The main purpose is to provide more freedom for recreational drone users by amending title 49 of the United States Code.

Key provisions include changes to Section 44809(c)(2)(C), which expands the airspace where recreational drones can operate without restriction. Specifically, it allows operation in Class E airspace above Class G airspace or in areas designated as extensions to controlled airspaces. This change is likely to benefit hobbyists and enthusiasts who use drones for recreation.

The affected parties include recreational drone users, manufacturers, and retailers. The drone industry has been growing rapidly, with companies like DJI and Parrot investing heavily in lobbying efforts. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and the Small UAV Coalition are also key stakeholders, having advocated for relaxed regulations on recreational drone use. Notably, the CTA has donated significantly to the campaigns of lawmakers on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which oversaw the initial passage of this bill.

The potential impact is increased accessibility and flexibility for recreational drone users, potentially boosting sales and growth in the industry. However, safety concerns and privacy issues may arise from increased drone activity in more airspace. The FAA will need to ensure that these changes do not compromise air traffic control or national security. It's worth noting that lawmakers who sponsored this bill have received significant donations from the tech and manufacturing sectors, which could indicate a conflict of interest.

In terms of committee capture, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has historically been influenced by the transportation and tech industries. The committee's chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, has received substantial campaign contributions from companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, as well as drone manufacturers. This could suggest that industry interests played a role in shaping this legislation.

Overall, while the Recreational Drone Empowerment Act may seem like a straightforward bill, it reflects the complex interplay of industry lobbying, campaign finance, and regulatory capture that often underlies legislative decisions. As the bill moves forward, it will be essential to monitor its progress and ensure that safety and privacy concerns are adequately addressed.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$149,070

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,800

Committees

Individuals

$143,270

No PAC contributions found

PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

1 transaction

$2,500

No committee contributions found

DEMETREE, MARK

1 transaction

$13,200

CORDES, SHANE L.

1 transaction

$13,200

FLOYD, MARTIE

2 transactions

$13,200

MANN, ROETTA D.

2 transactions

$13,200

HEMMER, THOMAS M.

2 transactions

$13,200

HEBENSTREIT, JAMES

1 transaction

$6,600

BARTON, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$6,600

HURD, MATTHEW D.

1 transaction

$6,600

OLSEN, LINDSAY

1 transaction

$6,600

MORRISON, AARON

1 transaction

$6,600

CROSSLAND, IVAN

1 transaction

$6,600

MURFIN, DAVID L.

1 transaction

$6,600

BORCK, LEE

1 transaction

$6,600

ANDERSON, STEVE

1 transaction

$6,600

VAN COURT, PHILLIP

1 transaction

$6,600

SILVER, LARRY

1 transaction

$6,270

BRIGGS, BART

1 transaction

$5,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]

ID: D000629

Top Contributors

HO-CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationWELCH, MN

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

REDDING RANCHERIA

OrganizationREDDING, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT

$3,300

Nov 15, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 32 nodes and 35 connections

Total contributions: $35

Top Donors - Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90
Section 2 amends 49 U.S.C. § 44809(c)(2)(C) to clarify recreational drone operations in Class E airspace, which benefits telecommunications companies that use drones for infrastructure inspection, tower maintenance, and network deployment by expanding permissible airspace for such operations.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
Section 2 expands recreational drone exceptions to include Class E airspace above Class G and extensions to Class B/C/D/E surface areas, aiding construction and engineering firms that use drones for site surveying, progress monitoring, and safety inspections by reducing regulatory barriers.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.80
Section 2's clarification of recreational drone operations in Class E airspace supports agribusinesses using drones for crop monitoring, precision agriculture, and livestock tracking by expanding legal airspace for low-altitude recreational-use drones that may be repurposed for commercial agricultural tasks under FAA guidelines.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1])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

Telecommunications$1,500
from 1 contribution
- JENNISON, COLEEN$1,500

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

Moderate

Vector: 57%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports the deployment of recreational drones, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of removing obstacles to emerging aviation technologies like drones and advanced air mobility. However, the bill focuses on recreational use rather than commercial or safety-focused innovation emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:drone technologyaviation innovationreducing regulatory barriersemerging air mobility

— 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

Executive Office of the President of the United States

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 99-102AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding recreational drone airspace access, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on science and technology policy, personnel management, and infrastructure permitting; the only connection is a tangential link through technology regulation."

Key themes:drone regulationtechnology policyairspace management

— 67 — Executive Office of the President of the United States 33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459. pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No. 117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/ usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023). 38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/ pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www. congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023). 41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023). 42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed March 9, 2023). 43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023). 44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20 Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State (accessed March 9, 2023). 45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office of the presidency by a process of succession. — 69 — 3 CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCIES: MANAGING THE BUREAUCRACY Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans OVERVIEW From the very first Mandate for Leadership, the “personnel is policy” theme has been the fundamental principle guiding the government’s personnel management. As the U.S. Constitution makes clear, the President’s appointment, direction, and removal author- ities are the central elements of his executive power.1 In implementing that power, the people and the President deserve the most talented and responsible workforce possible. Who the President assigns to design and implement his political policy agenda will determine whether he can carry out the responsibility given to him by the American people. The President must recognize that whoever holds a government position sets its policy. To fulfill an electoral mandate, he must therefore give per- sonnel management his highest priority, including Cabinet-level precedence. The federal government’s immense bureaucracy spreads into hundreds of agen- cies and thousands of units and is centered and overseen at the top by key central personnel agencies and their governing laws and regulations. The major separate personnel agencies in the national government today are: l The Office of Personnel Management (OPM); l The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); l The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); and l The Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding recreational drone operations in specific airspace, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes automated vehicles, spectrum allocation for transportation safety, fuel economy standards, and regulatory reform for emerging ground-based transportation technologies. There is minimal thematic overlap, as drones (particularly recreational use) are not addressed in the provided Project 2025 excerpt."

Key themes:transportation safetyregulatory claritytechnology integration

— 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

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses recreational drone airspace regulations, which is unrelated to the HHS-focused Project 2025 policies on health care, abortion, conscience protection, and civil rights."

— 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).

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 443-445AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses FAA airspace exceptions for recreational drones, which is unrelated to the Department of Energy focus on grid security, nuclear policy, and energy infrastructure outlined in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:regulationsafety

— 411 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions 19. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” May 1, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 86 (May 4, 2020), pp. 26595–26599, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2020-05-04/pdf/2020-09695.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 20. 18 U.S. Code § 824a(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/824a (accessed February 27, 2023). 21. Report No. 117-98, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2022, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 2021, p. 6, https:// www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt98/CRPT-117hrpt98.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 22. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 11-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division J, Title III. 23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 7. 24. Timothy Gardner, “White House Asks Congress for $500 mln to Modernize Oil Reserve,” Reuters, November 16, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-spr-idAFL1N32C36I (accessed February 13, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Our History,” https://www.energy.gov/oe/about-us/our- history (accessed February 13, 2023). 26. Press release, “Secretary of Energy Signs Order to Mitigate Security Risks to the Nation’s Electric Grid,” U.S. Department of Energy, December 17, 2021, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-signs-order- mitigate-security-risks-nations-electric-grid (accessed February 13, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, “Revocation of Prohibition Order Securing Critical Defense Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 76 (April 22, 2021), pp. 21308–21309, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-04-22/pdf/2021-08483.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19 and 61. 29. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 30. H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law No. 97-425, 97th Congress, January 7, 1983, https:// www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg2201.pdf (accessed February 24, 2023). 31. The Heritage Foundation, “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Reduce the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy,” https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.270.127.html. 32. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 23 and 58. 33. 42 USC § 16291, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/16291 (accessed February 27, 2023). 34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “About Us: Mission,” https:// www.energy.gov/fecm/mission (accessed February 13, 2023). 35. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration Projects, GAO-22-105111, December2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22- 105111.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 36. International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, revised March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a- 52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 37. See 42 U.S. Code § 16291. 38. 42 U.S. Code Ch. 55, §§ 4321–4347, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-55 (accessed February 27, 2023). 39. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 87 (May 7, 2021), pp. 24514–24516, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-07/pdf/2021-09675.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Reopening of Comment Period, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 160 (August 23, 2021), pp. 47032–47033, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-23/pdf/2021-18058.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 21, 23, and 52. — 412 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 3, 6, 12, 19, 21, and 23. 42. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1975, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 43. H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 109th Congress, August 8, 2005, https://www. congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 44. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “About the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/eere/about-office-energy-efficiency-and- renewable-energy (accessed February 28, 2023). 45. Ibid. 46. See note 41, supra. 47. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 19, 23, 43, and 49. 48. See U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “About Us,” https://www.energy.gov/gdo/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 49. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Building a Better Grid Initiative,” https://www.energy. gov/gdo/building-better-grid-initiative (accessed February 13, 2023). 50. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, pp. 2, 19, 21, 23, and 84. “The FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress proposes to split the Electricity appropriation account into two accounts: Electricity and Grid Deployment Office (GDO). Had the proposed FY 2023 structure been in place in FY 2021 and FY 2022, the $7,000,000 shown under the Electricity account’s Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance (TPTA) program would have appeared under Grid Technical Assistance in GDO and the $3,000,000 shown under Program Direction in the Electricity account represents the estimated share of Electricity PD funding associated with TPTA and would have appeared under Program Direction in GDO.” Ibid., p. 84, note. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Mission,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 13, 2023). 52. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, p. 6. 53. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “About Us: Our Story,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/about-us (accessed February 28, 2023). 54. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, “OCED Project Portfolio,” https://www. energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations (accessed February 28, 2023). 55. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Volume 3, Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Federal Energy Management Program, Grid Deployment Office, Indian Energy Policy & Programs, Loan Programs, Manufacturing & Energy Supply Chains, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Petroleum Reserves, Power Marketing Administrations, State and Community Energy Programs, April 2022, p. 104, https://www.energy. gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-3-v2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 56. See, for example, ibid., pp. 104 and 107. 57. U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, “LPO Year in Review 2022: New Legislation,” January 5, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-year-review-2022 (accessed February 28, 2023). Emphases in original. 58. H.R. 6256, To Ensure That Goods Made with Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China Do Not Enter the United States Market, and for Other Purposes, Public Law No. 117-78, 117th Congress, December 23, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ78/PLAW-117publ78.pdf (accessed February 28, 2023). 59. H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110–69, 110th Congress, August 9, 2007, § 5012, https://www. congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 60. Ibid., § 5012(c)(1). 61. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request, Budget in Brief, March 2022, p. 103.

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. Mann, Tracey

SHARE Act of 2025

119/hr/2332

Back to All Bills