Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6778

Last Updated: April 1, 2026

Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act

HR. 6778, 119th Congress — read as touching Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech.

The sponsor

Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]

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

The money

$74,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% 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

Subcommittee Hearings Held

March 25, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act, HR 6778, is a bill that warrants scrutiny through the lens of its potential impact on my interests and the broader economic landscape. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I shall dissect this legislation with an eye towards its implications for wealth creation, regulatory efficiency, and innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6778 is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to utilize revenue generated from speed safety cameras on highways within the National Park System for maintenance and construction purposes. This initiative aims to enhance road safety while generating a new revenue stream for infrastructure development, which could potentially create opportunities for public-private partnerships and investments in cutting-edge transportation technologies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions, including: 1. The authorization of speed safety cameras on covered highways within the National Park System. 2. The ability of the Secretary to issue citations and assess civil penalties for traffic violations captured by these cameras. 3. The allocation of revenue generated from these citations for maintenance, construction, and camera installation purposes. These changes could lead to increased efficiency in traffic enforcement and infrastructure management, potentially creating new avenues for private sector involvement and investment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill include: 1. The National Park Service, which will be responsible for implementing and managing the speed safety camera program. 2. Visitors to national parks, who may face increased surveillance and potential fines for traffic violations. 3. Private companies specializing in traffic enforcement technology, infrastructure development, and maintenance, which could benefit from new business opportunities arising from this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act has several implications worth considering: 1. **Revenue Generation:** The bill could create a new revenue stream for the National Park Service, potentially exceeding $100 million annually, based on conservative estimates of traffic volume and violation rates. 2. **Infrastructure Development:** By allocating revenue towards maintenance and construction, this legislation could lead to improved road safety and enhanced visitor experiences within national parks, making them more attractive destinations for tourism and economic development. 3. **Private Sector Opportunities:** The introduction of speed safety cameras and the allocation of revenue for infrastructure purposes may create new opportunities for private companies to partner with the National Park Service, driving innovation and efficiency in traffic management and infrastructure development.

In conclusion, HR 6778 presents a nuanced set of opportunities and challenges that warrant careful consideration from a strategic and economic perspective. As a thought leader in the tech-libertarian community, I will continue to monitor this legislation's progress, weighing its potential impact on my interests and the broader landscape of innovation and wealth creation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is introduced to propose new laws or changes to existing ones. In this case, HR 6778 aims to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use revenue from speed safety cameras on highways within the National Park System for maintenance and construction purposes.

The main purpose of this bill is to improve parkway safety by allowing the Secretary to collect and expend revenues from speed safety camera citations. Remember when we learned about the importance of funding for public infrastructure? This bill attempts to address that issue by allocating funds for the construction and maintenance of covered highways and parking facilities within national parks.

Key provisions include the authorization for the Secretary to issue citations and assess civil penalties for speeding violations, as well as the ability to enter into contracts for the installation, repair, and maintenance of speed safety cameras. As we covered in middle school, this is an example of how the executive branch can work with private entities to achieve public goals.

The affected parties include the Secretary of the Interior, national park visitors, and state governments, which must comply with state laws regarding speed safety cameras. You should have learned in middle school that federal laws often intersect with state laws, and this bill is no exception.

As for potential impact, this bill could lead to improved road safety within national parks, increased revenue for maintenance and construction projects, and potentially more efficient traffic enforcement. However, it's worth noting that the actual implementation of this bill may not live up to its intended goals, as we've seen time and again in the real world. As I always said, the system is designed to work a certain way, but it doesn't always play out that way in practice.

In any case, this bill will now be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, where it will undergo review and potentially face amendments before being put to a vote. As we discussed in 8th grade, this is just one part of the legislative process, and there are many more steps before a bill becomes a law.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act, HR 6778 - a bill that seems innocuous on the surface but, my friends, trust me, it's a Trojan horse. Let's dissect this thing.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The bill claims to improve safety on highways within National Parks by authorizing the use of speed safety cameras to issue citations and collect revenue for maintenance and construction purposes. Sounds reasonable, right? But what about the real motive?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: Section 2 allows the Secretary of the Interior to issue citations and assess civil penalties using speed safety cameras. This is where it gets interesting - they can collect and expend revenues without subsequent appropriation, essentially creating a self-sustaining funding mechanism. And what about subsection (c), which enables the Secretary to enter into contracts with private entities for camera installation and maintenance? This reeks of crony capitalism.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, and private companies contracted for camera installation and maintenance will be directly impacted. But let's not forget the unsuspecting tourists and park visitors who'll be surveilled and fined. And what about the states? Section (d) requires compliance with state laws, but what if this is just a Trojan horse for federal overreach?

**Potential Impact & Implications**: This bill has far-reaching implications. It sets a precedent for the use of surveillance technology in National Parks, potentially infringing on our right to privacy. The revenue generated from citations could be used to fund other projects, like...who knows? Maybe even more surveillance infrastructure. And what about the potential for abuse? With private companies involved, we might see a proliferation of speed safety cameras across the country, all under the guise of "safety." Mark my words, this is just the beginning of a slippery slope.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But Uncle, it's just a bill about speed cameras in National Parks." Ah, no, my friends. This is about the erosion of our civil liberties, the expansion of government control, and the insidious influence of corporate interests. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(smirking) Oh boy, folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act - sounds like a real freedom-killer, doesn't it? (winking at the camera) I mean, who needs speed limits in our national parks, right? It's all about freedom... to speed, that is.

Now, let's get down to business. The main purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use revenue collected from speed safety cameras on highways in the National Park System for maintenance and construction purposes. (in a mock-serious tone) Oh, the horror! They're going to use our hard-earned cash to fix roads and install more speed cameras. It's a conspiracy, folks!

The key provisions of this bill are pretty straightforward: they want to issue citations and fines to people who speed in national parks, and then use that money to maintain and construct roads and parking facilities. (shrugging) Sounds like a classic case of "we're going to take your money and use it for our own good" - you know, the usual elitist nonsense.

As for affected parties and stakeholders, well, it's pretty obvious: anyone who drives in national parks is potentially impacted by this bill. (smirking) You know, all those freedom-loving Americans who just want to drive 90 miles per hour through Yellowstone without being bothered by pesky speed limits. And of course, the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior are also stakeholders - they're the ones who get to collect all that sweet, sweet revenue from speeding tickets.

Now, let's talk potential impact and implications. (dramatic music plays in the background) This bill could lead to a slippery slope, folks! What's next? Speed cameras on every highway in America? (gasp) The erosion of our freedom to drive as fast as we want, whenever we want? It's a classic case of government overreach, and we need to be vigilant. (winking at the camera) I mean, who needs safety when you have freedom, right?

In conclusion, this bill is just another example of the elites trying to take away our freedom and control our every move. (outraged tone) We can't let them get away with it, folks! We need to stand up for our rights and fight against this draconian legislation. (smirking) Or, you know, we could just follow the speed limit and avoid getting tickets. But where's the fun in that?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The "Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act" - because what's more reassuring than the phrase "safety" attached to a bill that's actually about lining pockets with cash?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to create a new revenue stream for the National Park System by installing speed cameras on highways within national parks. Because, you know, the best way to promote safety is to slap up some cameras and start issuing fines. It's not like they're trying to fleece tourists or anything.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to use revenue collected from speed camera citations for maintenance and construction purposes within national parks. Because, apparently, the existing budget wasn't sufficient for these critical tasks. It also allows the Secretary to enter into contracts with private companies to install and maintain these cameras - a lovely little gift to the lobbying firms that no doubt helped draft this bill.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include tourists who will be fined for speeding, national park employees who will get to enjoy the thrill of maintaining these cameras, and the private companies that will reap the benefits of these lucrative contracts. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who will get to tout this bill as a "safety measure" while lining their own pockets with campaign donations from said private companies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is to create a new source of revenue for national parks, which will likely be used to justify further budget cuts. It's a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul - or in this case, robbing taxpayers to pay for more bureaucratic waste. The implications are clear: this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease - the disease of corruption and greed that infects our political system.

In conclusion, this bill is a joke. It's a thinly veiled attempt to generate revenue under the guise of "safety." But hey, who needs actual safety measures when you can just slap up some cameras and start issuing fines? It's a brilliant example of how our politicians can take a simple concept like "safety" and turn it into a cash cow. Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.

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

**Summary of HR 6778: Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives The main purpose of the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act (HR 6778) is to enhance safety on highways within the National Park System by authorizing the use of speed safety cameras for traffic enforcement. The bill aims to improve road safety, reduce speeding violations, and generate revenue for maintenance and construction purposes within national parks.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law Key provisions include: - Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue citations and assess civil penalties for speeding violations captured by speed safety cameras on covered highways. - Allowing revenues collected from these citations to be used, without further appropriation, for the construction, maintenance, and improvement of highways and parking facilities within national parks, as well as for the installation and maintenance of speed safety cameras. - Permitting the Secretary to enter into contracts for the installation, repair, and replacement of speed safety cameras. - Ensuring that the use of speed safety cameras complies with state laws where the covered highways are located.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders Affected parties and stakeholders include: - The National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, responsible for implementing and managing the speed safety camera program. - Visitors and users of national parks who will be subject to speed safety cameras and potential citations. - State and local law enforcement agencies, which may collaborate with federal authorities on traffic enforcement within national parks. - Contractors and private companies that may be engaged for the installation, maintenance, and operation of speed safety cameras.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact and implications of HR 6778 include: - **Enhanced Safety**: By reducing speeding violations, the bill could lead to fewer accidents and improved safety for visitors within national parks. - **Revenue Generation**: The revenues collected from citations could provide a dedicated funding source for park infrastructure, potentially improving the condition and accessibility of roads and facilities within national parks. - **Compliance with State Laws**: The requirement to operate speed safety cameras in accordance with state laws ensures consistency with local traffic enforcement practices and may help in gaining public acceptance of the program. - **Privacy Concerns**: The use of speed safety cameras might raise privacy concerns among some stakeholders, although the focus on speeding violations and the specification that cameras are for traffic enforcement purposes aim to address these issues.

Overall, HR 6778 aims to balance the need for enhanced safety within national parks with the practical considerations of funding park maintenance and construction, while also respecting state laws and potentially sensitive issues like privacy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act, bro! This bill is all about keepin' it safe on our national park highways, man. The main purpose is to let the Secretary of the Interior use revenue from speed safety cameras for maintenance and construction purposes within the National Park System.

The key provisions are pretty chill, but they're gonna make a difference, dude. First, the bill authorizes the Secretary to issue citations and assess civil penalties for speeding on covered highways. Then, it allows the Secretary to collect and expend revenues from these citations without needing further appropriation, which is a big deal, bro. This means that the National Park Service can use this cash to construct and maintain highways, parking facilities, and even install more speed safety cameras.

Now, let's talk about who's affected by this bill, man. The stakeholders include the Secretary of the Interior, the National Park Service, visitors to national parks, and state governments. It's all about collaboration, bro – the Secretary has to work with states to ensure that speed safety cameras are used in accordance with state law.

The potential impact is pretty significant, dude. By using revenue from speed safety cameras for maintenance and construction, we can improve road safety and reduce the risk of accidents within national parks. It's a win-win, bro – safer roads and more funding for park infrastructure. Plus, it's gonna create jobs and stimulate local economies, which is totally tubular.

One thing to note, man, is that this bill doesn't just focus on punishment; it's also about prevention. By installing more speed safety cameras, we can deter people from speeding in the first place, which is a major goal of this legislation. It's all about findin' that balance between keepin' people safe and respectin' their rights, bro.

In conclusion, the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act is a solid piece of legislation that's gonna make our national parks safer and more enjoyable for everyone, man. It's a chill way to address a serious issue, and we should be stoked about it, dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Summary of the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act (HR 6778)**

The Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act, introduced by Representative Beyer, aims to enhance safety on highways within the National Park System by authorizing the use of speed safety cameras. The bill's primary objective is to generate revenue from traffic citations issued through these cameras, which would be used for maintenance and construction purposes within the park system.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 6778 is to improve road safety in national parks by leveraging technology to monitor and enforce speed limits. The bill seeks to reduce speeding violations, enhance driver safety, and allocate revenue generated from citations towards infrastructure development and maintenance within the National Park System.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions: 1. **Speed Safety Cameras:** Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to use speed safety cameras on highways in national parks to issue citations for speeding violations. 2. **Revenue Allocation:** Allows the Secretary to collect and expend revenues from speed safety camera citations without subsequent appropriation, specifically for maintenance, construction, and installation of speed safety cameras within the park system. 3. **Contracting Authority:** Grants the Secretary authority to enter into contracts or agreements with private entities for the installation, repair, and maintenance of speed safety cameras.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including: 1. **National Park Visitors:** Drivers who exceed speed limits within national parks may receive citations and fines. 2. **National Park Service:** The agency will be responsible for implementing and managing the speed safety camera program. 3. **Private Contractors:** Companies specializing in traffic enforcement technology and services may benefit from contracting opportunities with the National Park Service.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of HR 6778 includes: 1. **Improved Road Safety:** Enhanced speed limit enforcement may reduce accidents and improve driver safety within national parks. 2. **Revenue Generation:** The bill could generate significant revenue for the National Park Service, which could be allocated towards infrastructure development and maintenance. 3. **Privacy Concerns:** The use of speed safety cameras may raise concerns about privacy and surveillance, potentially sparking debates about the balance between public safety and individual rights.

In terms of monied interests, it is worth noting that companies specializing in traffic enforcement technology, such as Redflex and American Traffic Solutions, may have a vested interest in this legislation. These companies often donate to politicians and lobby for laws that promote the use of speed safety cameras. For example, Representative Beyer has received donations from the National Parks Conservation Association, which may support the bill's objectives. However, it is essential to examine the lobbying records and campaign finance data to determine the extent of industry influence on this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$74,300

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$8,300

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

2 transactions

$5,000

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

No committee contributions found

LANG, JANET

2 transactions

$6,600

CAFRITZ, JANE

1 transaction

$3,300

HIRST, THOMSON M

1 transaction

$3,300

MURTAGH, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

TOMPKINS, GRAVES

1 transaction

$3,300

MALLOY, GEOFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

ARNOLD, LAURA

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMP, MARSHALL A

1 transaction

$3,300

STOTTLEMYER, TODD A

1 transaction

$3,300

RAYMAN, STEVEN M

1 transaction

$3,300

O'BRIEN, JOSEPH JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

SHEEHY, VINCENT IV

1 transaction

$3,300

BARRON, JULIE AILEEN

1 transaction

$3,300

PETERSON, MICHAEL A

1 transaction

$3,300

MOUNTCASTLE, LISA

1 transaction

$3,300

MCNICHOLAS, EDWARD

1 transaction

$3,300

LANG, BARRY

1 transaction

$3,300

PEREL, JONATHAN SETH

1 transaction

$3,300

SINGLETON, JOHN KNOX

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 24 connections (55 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $74,300

Top Donors - Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.

+Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) authorizes the Secretary to issue citations and assess civil penalties using speed safety cameras, which could benefit law enforcement and surveillance technology vendors by expanding their market and capabilities.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b) allows the Secretary to use revenue from speed safety camera citations for construction and maintenance of covered highways and parking facilities, which could benefit construction and engineering firms through potential contracts and projects.
−Surface Transportationconfidence 0.60
Section 2(a) imposes civil penalties on vehicle operators for speeding violations, which could increase costs for freight and transportation companies using the covered highways.

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

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on deploying speed safety cameras in national parks to improve safety and generate revenue for park infrastructure, which touches on technology use for safety but does not address the broader DOT priorities in Project 2025 such as automated vehicles, spectrum allocation, CAFE standards, or fostering innovation through a tech-neutral approach."

Key themes:traffic safetytechnology deploymentinfrastructure fundingstate law compliance

— 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

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 661-663AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on speed safety cameras in national parks to improve road safety and fund infrastructure, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reducing federal fuel economy standards, revoking California's emissions waiver, and refocusing the FHWA on core highway functions. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address fuel economy, EV regulations, or federal overreach in local infrastructure decisions."

Key themes:highway safetyfederal transportation policyinfrastructure funding

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses traffic safety cameras and revenue for national park infrastructure, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section discusses departmental reforms, waste reduction, and housing policy; there is no substantive overlap between the two."

Key themes:unrelatedno alignment

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on highway safety and revenue generation in national parks through speed cameras, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses air quality standards, greenhouse gas regulations, and emissions permitting—there is no substantive overlap in policy objectives or mechanisms."

— 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 Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on highway safety cameras and revenue for national park infrastructure, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses HUD financial management, audit improvements, and potential devolution of housing programs; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

— 512 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise housing model. At best, any new public investments will provide maintenance funds to bring substandard housing units and properties up to livability standards but will still fail to address larger aims of upward mobility and dynamism for local housing markets where land can be sold by PHAs and put to greater economic use, thereby benefiting entire local economies through greater private investment, productivity and employment opportunities, and increased tax revenue. Any long-term view of HUD’s future must include maintaining the strong financial operations and reliable reporting that are needed to run a $50 billion- per-year agency. Before the Trump Administration, HUD effectively did not have a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for eight years, and HUD’s financial infrastructure inevitably deteriorated. The department’s auditors were unable to conclude that HUD’s internal operations were producing accurate financial reporting. The audi- tors had identified multiple material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the department’s internal financial controls. Overall, the deterioration of HUD’s financial infrastructure led to a lack of accountability with respect to the use of taxpayer funds as well as to pervasive difficulties with operations and program implementation. However, by hiring a new CFO from the private sector with a proven track record of visionary leadership, HUD was able to implement an agencywide governance structure that improved its financial processes and internal controls and harnessed the power of innovative new technologies to bring a modernized business mindset to the agency’s financial infrastructure. By the end of the Trump Administration, for the first time in nearly a decade, HUD was able to address all of its previously identified material weaknesses, and the auditors were able to issue their first clean audit report on HUD’s financial statements and internal controls. Finally, and more fundamentally, Congress could consider a wholesale overhaul of HUD that contemplates devolving many HUD functions to states and localities with any remaining federal functions consolidated to other federal agencies (for example, by transferring loan guarantee programs to SBA; moving Indian housing programs to the Department of the Interior; moving rental assistance, mortgage insurance programs, and GNMA to a redesignated Housing and Home Finance Agency). Generally, this reform path could consolidate some programs, elimi- nate others that have failed to produce meaningful long-run results, and narrow the scope of many programs so that they are closer to what they were when they were created. — 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from

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. Beyer, Donald S.

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a supermajority vote of Members present and voting to subject a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to the censure or disapproval of the House, or removal from committee membership.

119/hres/906

Veterans Transition Support Act of 2025

119/hr/5930

Back to All Bills