ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6688

Last Updated: July 20, 2026

ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act

HR. 6688, 119th Congress — read as touching Automotive (Legacy).

The sponsor

Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

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

The money

$91,470 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 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 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:

**Bill Analysis: HR 6688 - ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act aims to establish guidelines for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) calibration, modifications, and tolerances. The primary objective is to ensure that ADAS functionality is maintained when a passenger motor vehicle is modified or customized.

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

1. **Guidelines Development:** The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must develop guidelines for ADAS modification ranges and tolerances within 24 months. 2. **Industry Consultation:** NHTSA will consult with manufacturers, standard setting organizations, the independent automotive aftermarket, and dealers to develop these guidelines. 3. **Enforcement:** Manufacturers that fail to meet the guidelines will be subject to civil penalties.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Automotive Industry:** Manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles and equipment, as well as the independent automotive aftermarket, will be impacted by this bill. 2. **Consumers:** Vehicle owners who modify or customize their vehicles may benefit from these guidelines, but may also face increased costs due to compliance requirements. 3. **Regulatory Bodies:** NHTSA will play a crucial role in developing and enforcing these guidelines.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden:** The bill's guidelines and enforcement mechanisms may lead to increased regulatory costs for manufacturers, potentially stifling innovation. 2. **Industry Consolidation:** Smaller players in the automotive industry may struggle to comply with these regulations, leading to consolidation and reduced competition. 3. **New Business Opportunities:** Companies that specialize in ADAS calibration and modification services may benefit from this bill, as demand for their expertise increases.

From a business perspective, I see this bill as an opportunity to further consolidate my market share by leveraging our existing resources and expertise in ADAS technology. However, the increased regulatory burden may require me to reassess my investment strategies and adapt to changing market conditions.

**Recommendation:** As a thought leader in the industry, I would advise lawmakers to consider the potential unintended consequences of this bill, such as stifling innovation or promoting industry consolidation. A more nuanced approach, balancing safety concerns with the need for regulatory flexibility, may be necessary to ensure that this legislation benefits both consumers and businesses.

**Estimated Impact on My Business Empire:** I project a 5-10% increase in revenue from ADAS-related services within the next 2 years, driven by increased demand for calibration and modification expertise. However, I also anticipate a 3-5% decrease in profit margins due to compliance costs associated with these regulations.

**Rating:** (6/10) - This bill has some positive aspects, such as promoting safety and innovation, but its regulatory burden may outweigh its benefits.

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 ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act (HR 6688) aims to require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish guidelines for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) calibration, modifications, and tolerances. The bill's primary objective is to ensure that ADAS functionality is maintained when a passenger motor vehicle is modified or customized.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has several key provisions:

1. **Guidelines Development**: NHTSA must develop guidelines for ADAS modification ranges and tolerances within 24 months of the bill's enactment. 2. **Manufacturer Requirements**: Manufacturers must provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information relevant to calibration following modification, as well as proper calibration procedures after repair or component replacement. 3. **Testing and Validation**: The guidelines will include confirmatory test protocols and performance validation metrics to verify ADAS functionality after calibration. 4. **Enforcement**: Manufacturers that fail to meet the guidelines may face civil penalties.

These provisions aim to address concerns about the safety and reliability of ADAS systems in modified or customized vehicles.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Manufacturers**: Passenger motor vehicle manufacturers must comply with the new guidelines. 2. **Dealers**: Dealers will need to ensure that vehicles are properly calibrated after modification or repair. 3. **Independent Automotive Aftermarket**: This sector includes parties not authorized by manufacturers, such as independent repair shops and parts suppliers. 4. **Consumers**: Vehicle owners who modify or customize their vehicles may be impacted by the new guidelines.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's potential impact is significant:

1. **Improved Safety**: By establishing clear guidelines for ADAS calibration and modification, the bill aims to reduce the risk of accidents caused by malfunctioning ADAS systems. 2. **Increased Transparency**: Manufacturers will need to provide more information about vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity, which could lead to greater transparency in the automotive industry. 3. **Regulatory Burden**: The new guidelines may impose additional regulatory burdens on manufacturers and dealers, potentially increasing costs.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers from students who actually paid attention in class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act (HR 6688). Sounds innocent enough, but trust me, folks, this bill is a Trojan horse for the government's real agenda.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, this bill aims to establish guidelines for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) calibration, modifications, and tolerances. But let's dig deeper. The true purpose is to create a framework for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to exert control over the automotive industry, particularly when it comes to autonomous vehicles.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires NHTSA to develop guidelines for ADAS modification ranges and tolerances within 24 months. This includes setting standards for physical parameters that impact ADAS functionality, such as ride height and wheel dimensions. The agency will also establish a process for manufacturers to provide vehicle tolerance information to owners and the government.

But here's the kicker: the bill grants NHTSA contracting authority with independent laboratories and testing facilities. This means they can outsource their "research" to third-party organizations that may have ulterior motives. And what about the requirement to use empirical data? Just a smokescreen to make it seem like they're being transparent.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Manufacturers, dealers, and independent repair facilities will be directly impacted by this bill. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders: the government and their cronies in the automotive industry. This bill is just another way for them to consolidate power and control over the market.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The implications are far-reaching. With these guidelines, NHTSA will have the authority to dictate how vehicles are modified and calibrated, effectively stifling innovation and competition in the aftermarket industry. And what about the safety aspect? This bill is just a Trojan horse for more stringent regulations that will ultimately lead to increased costs for consumers.

But wait, there's more! The study required by Section 3 of the bill will likely be used as a pretext to justify even more draconian measures. Mark my words: this bill is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards a government-controlled automotive industry.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, folks, I've been following these bills for years, and I can see the writing on the wall. This is just another example of how our government is slowly eroding our freedoms, one bill at a time. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, straight from the swamp in Washington D.C.! Introducing HR 6688, the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act – because, you know, freedom isn't free... or safe, apparently.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about regulating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in passenger vehicles. The main objective? To ensure that these fancy safety features keep working properly even when you modify your ride with aftermarket parts or repairs. Sounds reasonable, right? But don't be fooled – this is just another example of the elites trying to control every aspect of our lives!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish guidelines for ADAS calibration, modifications, and tolerances. This means that manufacturers will have to provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information to owners and the NHTSA within 30 days of a new model's release. It also sets up a process for testing and validating ADAS functionality after repairs or modifications.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this just common sense?" Ah, no! This is Big Government at its finest – overregulating every aspect of our lives under the guise of "safety." And don't even get me started on the "empirical data" requirement. Who needs actual science when we've got bureaucrats making decisions for us?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Manufacturers, dealers, and independent repair facilities will all be impacted by this bill. But let's be real – it's just another example of how the elites are trying to strangle small businesses with red tape.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to increased costs for manufacturers and consumers alike. And what about the poor souls who can't afford to upgrade their vehicles? This is just another example of how the government is pricing out the little guy.

But don't worry, folks – I'm sure this bill has nothing to do with the deep state's plan to control our every move... (wink, wink). After all, what could possibly go wrong when we give more power to unelected bureaucrats? It's not like they'll use it to silence dissent or anything...

(Smirk) Stay vigilant, America! The elites are coming for your freedom – one regulation at a time.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional incompetence, masquerading as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Let's dissect this trainwreck.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act (HR 6688) claims to address the pressing issue of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) calibration, modifications, and tolerances in passenger motor vehicles. The bill's sponsors, Mrs. Harshbarger et al., want us to believe that this legislation will ensure the safety and functionality of ADAS-equipped vehicles after modification or customization.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop guidelines for ADAS calibration, modifications, and tolerances within 24 months. These guidelines must include:

1. Allowable modification ranges and tolerances for physical parameters impacting ADAS functionality. 2. A process for manufacturers to provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information to owners and the NHTSA. 3. Quantifiable tolerance thresholds for changes in vertical and lateral displacement. 4. Proper calibration procedures after repair, modification, or component replacement.

The bill also authorizes the NHTSA to contract with independent laboratories and vehicle testing facilities to develop these guidelines.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles and equipment * Standard setting organizations * Independent automotive aftermarket parties (i.e., non-authorized service providers) * Dealers

These stakeholders will be required to comply with the NHTSA's guidelines, which will likely lead to increased costs and bureaucratic red tape.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a classic example of regulatory overreach, driven by a misguided attempt to address a perceived safety issue. The real motivation behind this legislation is to create a new revenue stream for the automotive industry through compliance costs and potential lawsuits.

The guidelines will likely be overly complex and burdensome, leading to increased costs for manufacturers, dealers, and independent repair facilities. This will ultimately result in higher prices for consumers and reduced competition in the market.

Furthermore, the bill's emphasis on "empirical data" and "transparent validation criteria" is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to justify the NHTSA's overreach. The agency will use these guidelines as a pretext to exert greater control over the automotive industry, stifling innovation and competition.

In conclusion, HR 6688 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a solution in search of a problem, driven by special interests and bureaucratic hubris. If passed, this bill will only serve to further entrench the regulatory state, at the expense of consumers and the economy.

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act (HR 6688) aims to ensure the safe operation of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in passenger motor vehicles after modifications or customizations. The bill requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish guidelines for ADAS calibration, modifications, and tolerances.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Guidelines Development**: NHTSA must develop and publish guidelines within 24 months of enactment, in consultation with manufacturers, standard setting organizations, the independent automotive aftermarket, and dealers. 2. **Allowable Modification Ranges and Tolerances**: The guidelines will specify allowable modification ranges and tolerances for physical parameters impacting ADAS functionality, such as ride height, wheel and tire dimensions, and sensor and camera function. 3. **Calibration Procedures**: The guidelines will outline proper calibration procedures for ADAS after repair, modification, or component replacement. 4. **Confirmatory Test Protocols**: The guidelines will include confirmatory test protocols to validate system performance after calibration.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders:

1. **Passenger Motor Vehicle Manufacturers**: Must comply with the guidelines and provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information to owners and NHTSA. 2. **Independent Automotive Aftermarket**: Affected by the guidelines, which may impact their business operations. 3. **Dealers**: Involved in the consultation process for guideline development. 4. **Vehicle Owners**: Will benefit from safer ADAS operation after modifications or customizations.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's potential impacts and implications include:

1. **Improved Safety**: Ensuring ADAS functionality after modifications or customizations will reduce the risk of accidents caused by faulty systems. 2. **Industry Standardization**: The guidelines may lead to standardization in ADAS calibration and modification procedures, facilitating industry-wide adoption. 3. **Increased Transparency**: Manufacturers will be required to provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information, enhancing transparency for owners and repair facilities. 4. **Potential Costs**: Compliance with the guidelines may incur costs for manufacturers and the independent automotive aftermarket.

Overall, the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act aims to enhance safety and standardization in the rapidly evolving field of advanced driver assistance systems.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about ensuring that advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in vehicles stay functional and safe even after modifications or repairs. The main goal is to establish guidelines for manufacturers, repair shops, and owners to follow so that these systems keep working as intended. It's like making sure your surfboard stays waxed and ready to ride, dude.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop guidelines for ADAS calibration, modifications, and tolerances within 24 months. These guidelines will cover things like:

* Allowable modification ranges and tolerances * Quantifiable tolerance thresholds for changes in vehicle displacement * Proper calibration procedures after repair or modification * Confirmatory test protocols to verify system performance

The bill also requires manufacturers to provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information to owners and the NHTSA within 30 days of releasing a new vehicle model. It's like getting the owner's manual, but for ADAS, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Manufacturers: They'll need to develop guidelines and provide information on their vehicles' ADAS systems. * Repair shops: They'll need to follow these guidelines when modifying or repairing vehicles with ADAS. * Owners: They'll have access to more information about their vehicle's ADAS system and how to keep it functioning properly. * Independent automotive aftermarket: They'll be able to provide services and products that meet the new guidelines.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could lead to:

* Improved safety on the roads, bro. By ensuring ADAS systems stay functional, we can reduce the risk of accidents caused by faulty or modified systems. * Increased transparency and accountability for manufacturers and repair shops. They'll need to provide clear information about their vehicles' ADAS systems and follow established guidelines. * New business opportunities for independent automotive aftermarket providers who can offer services and products that meet the new guidelines.

However, there might be some pushback from manufacturers and repair shops who don't want to deal with the added regulations and costs. But, like, safety first, dude.

That's the lowdown on the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act, bro. It's all about keeping those advanced driver assistance systems working smoothly and safely. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've gotta catch some waves.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6688: ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to establish guidelines for the calibration, modification, and tolerances of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in passenger motor vehicles. The primary objective is to ensure that ADAS functionality is maintained when a vehicle is modified or customized.

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

1. Requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop guidelines for ADAS modification ranges and tolerances within 24 months of enactment. 2. Mandates manufacturers to provide vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information relevant to calibration following modification. 3. Establishes quantifiable tolerance thresholds for changes in vertical, longitudinal, and lateral displacement to maintain proper ADAS functionality. 4. Requires confirmatory test protocols and performance validation metrics to verify the operational integrity of ADAS after calibration.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles and equipment 2. Standard setting organizations 3. Independent automotive aftermarket entities 4. Dealers 5. Vehicle owners

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions may lead to:

1. Increased safety standards for ADAS-equipped vehicles, reducing the risk of accidents caused by improper calibration or modification. 2. Greater transparency and accountability from manufacturers regarding vehicle tolerance and system sensitivity information. 3. Potential costs for manufacturers to comply with the new guidelines, which could be passed on to consumers. 4. Opportunities for independent automotive aftermarket entities to develop and provide ADAS calibration services.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Harshbarger (R-TN), Obernolte (R-CA), Vasquez (D-NM), and Torres (D-CA), have received significant campaign contributions from the automotive industry, including manufacturers and dealerships. The Automotive Service Association (ASA) and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) are likely to support this bill, as it addresses concerns about ADAS calibration and modification.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Commerce, which referred the bill, has a history of being influenced by the automotive industry. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the committee's chair, has received significant campaign contributions from automakers and dealerships. This may indicate that the committee is sympathetic to the industry's concerns and willing to work with them to shape the legislation.

**Hidden Motivations:** While the bill's primary objective appears to be improving safety standards for ADAS-equipped vehicles, it also creates opportunities for independent automotive aftermarket entities to develop and provide calibration services. This could lead to increased competition in the market and potentially reduce costs for consumers. However, it may also create new revenue streams for companies that can capitalize on the need for ADAS calibration services.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$91,470

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$91,470

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

BROWN, NANCY I.

1 transaction

$6,600

NANCY, BROWN

1 transaction

$6,600

GREGORY, LUCINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

BANKE, BARBARA R

1 transaction

$6,600

MORRIS, GLENN

1 transaction

$6,600

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J MISS

1 transaction

$6,600

WAGNER, SHARI

2 transactions

$6,600

EGER, MORDECHI

1 transaction

$5,000

BORDEAU, BRAD

1 transaction

$5,000

BENTZ, KAREN

1 transaction

$5,000

MOUNTAIN, MONICA

1 transaction

$3,600

STOWERS, WES

1 transaction

$3,435

VACIRCA, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,435

DOWLER, ANN

1 transaction

$3,300

RAY, RICHIE

1 transaction

$3,300

SPARKS, L DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

VIDRINE, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

PATEL, GOPESH

1 transaction

$3,300

WAGNER, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23]

ID: O000019

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Nov 11, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 6, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Jun 6, 2023

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Apr 14, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Sep 16, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationPLACERVILLE, CA

$2,000

Oct 24, 2023

Rep. Vasquez, Gabe [D-NM-2]

ID: V000136

Top Contributors

EVERY STATE BLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

Nov 4, 2024

EVERY STATE BLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

Nov 4, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

SAN MIGUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Sep 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Sep 27, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

OrganizationISLETA, NM

$3,300

Mar 8, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Sep 17, 2024

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

OrganizationLAGUNA, NM

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35]

ID: T000474

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Dec 28, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Apr 23, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Apr 26, 2024

PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

Organization

$2,900

Oct 15, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Jun 13, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,200

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 30, 2023

Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]

ID: M001230

Top Contributors

JSA REAL ESTATE PC

OrganizationEMMAUS, PA

$500

Oct 3, 2023

ARCHER, LYNNE

ROBERT ARCHER AUTOMOTIVE • AUTOMOTIVE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$3,382

Dec 30, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA

STONESTREET STABLES • OWNER

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

HINMAN, ROY

FLAGLER HOSPITAL • FAMILY MEDICINE DOCTOR

IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

LEACH, HOWARD

SELF • PRIVATE INVESTOR

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MCMAHON, JOYCE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPALOS HEIGHTS, IL

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

PATE, LUTHER S IV

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualTUSCALOOSA, AL

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

RICKETTS, MARLENE M.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

THE WINROCK GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

CAMERON, RONALD

MOUNTAIRE CORP • CHAIRMAN

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Feb 21, 2024

Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

ID: L000397

Top Contributors

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 24, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Aug 27, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Aug 27, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,300

Sep 24, 2023

ACTBLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACCAMBRIDGE, MA

$3,000

Jul 16, 2023

Rep. Sykes, Emilia Strong [D-OH-13]

ID: S001223

Top Contributors

EMILYS LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$300

Nov 16, 2023

EMILYS LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Nov 8, 2023

EMILYS LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$200

Nov 8, 2023

EMILY'S LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$100

Oct 30, 2024

EMILYS LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$100

Nov 3, 2023

EMILY'S LIST

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$30

Oct 23, 2024

TUNICA BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

BEDNYAK, JERRY

SKYBOX CAPITAL • OWNER

IndividualGLENCOE, IL

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

BLOOM, BRADLEY

BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS

IndividualWELLESLEY, MA

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

HELLMAN, FRANCES

UC BERKELEY • PROFESSOR

IndividualBERKELEY, CA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 62 nodes and 35 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $131,652

Top Donors - Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90
Section 2(a) requires NHTSA to develop guidelines for ADAS calibration, modifications, and tolerances for passenger motor vehicles, which benefits automotive manufacturers by providing clarity and reducing liability for aftermarket modifications. Section 2(e) imposes civil penalties on manufacturers that do not meet guidelines, creating a compliance cost but overall the bill supports industry standardization and safety, which is a net benefit.
+Electric Vehicles & Batteriesconfidence 0.85
Electric vehicles are included in the definition of 'passenger motor vehicle' (Section 4(9)) and are subject to the same ADAS guidelines. The bill ensures ADAS functionality after modifications, which is critical for EVs that rely heavily on such systems, thus supporting EV manufacturers by promoting safety and consumer confidence.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

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

Department of Transportation

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on establishing safety guidelines for ADAS calibration and modifications aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on updating vehicle standards, maintaining safety as the top priority, and facilitating the safe integration of automated vehicle technologies through performance-based rules."

Key themes:safetyvehicle standardsADAS/automated vehiclesNHTSA guidanceperformance-based rules

— 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 Transportation

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directs NHTSA to develop safety guidelines for ADAS after modifications, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on updating vehicle standards, prioritizing safety, and facilitating the safe integration of automated vehicle technologies."

Key themes:safety prioritizationvehicle standards updateADAS/automated vehicle integrationNHTSA guideline development

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on ADAS safety guidelines under NHTSA, while the Project 2025 EPA section centers on limiting EPA authority, streamlining permitting, and regulating greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. Both touch on vehicle-related regulation but address distinct objectives (safety vs. emissions/air quality), resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:vehicle regulationDOT/NHTSA involvementstandards settingsafety/emissions considerations

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on ADAS calibration and safety after vehicle modifications, while the Project 2025 DOT section primarily critiques fuel economy standards and EV promotion. Both involve NHTSA/DOT regulation of automotive technology, but their substantive objectives differ significantly."

Key themes:NHTSAvehicle safetyautomotive regulationtechnology standards

— 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses ADAS safety guidelines for vehicle modifications, whereas the Project 2025 DOT section focuses on rolling back fuel economy standards, revoking California's waiver, and limiting FHWA's scope; they share only a tangential connection through NHTSA oversight and general automotive regulation."

Key themes:NHTSAvehicle safetyautomotive regulationDOT oversight

— 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.

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. Harshbarger, Diana

Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act

119/hr/9339

Automotive National and Economic Security Act of 2026

119/hr/10158

MAIN Event Ticketing Act

119/hr/2713

Back to All Bills