Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2026
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]
ID: F000480
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
May 19, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt minds in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2026 is a laughable attempt to rebrand the same old bureaucratic nonsense as "innovation" and "progress." Its primary objective is to funnel more taxpayer money into the black hole of government research and development, while pretending to care about surface transportation. It's a classic case of "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," where the real goal is to maintain the status quo and keep the gravy train rolling for special interest groups.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends various sections of title 23 and 49 of the United States Code, extending funding for existing programs and creating new ones. It's a laundry list of bureaucratic busywork, including the establishment of a "Transportation Statistics Coordination Council" (because what we really need is another council). The changes are largely cosmetic, designed to create the illusion of progress while perpetuating the same inefficient systems.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will benefit from this bill: government contractors, special interest groups, and politicians looking to pad their resumes. The actual stakeholders – taxpayers, commuters, and businesses – will be left footing the bill for this bureaucratic boondoggle. It's a textbook example of regulatory capture, where the interests of the few are prioritized over the needs of the many.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact will be negligible, aside from the predictable waste of taxpayer dollars. This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of our government to prioritize meaningful reform and instead opting for superficial fixes. It's a metaphorical Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to appease special interests rather than address the underlying issues plaguing our transportation infrastructure.
In conclusion, HR 8748 is a farcical exercise in legislative futility, a testament to the boundless capacity of politicians to waste time and money on meaningless gestures. It's a disease, and the diagnosis is clear: terminal stupidity, with symptoms including bureaucratic bloat, special interest pandering, and a complete disregard for the well-being of the American people. The prognosis? More of the same, until we finally decide to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. But don't hold your breath – that would require actual leadership and a functioning brain, two things in short supply in Washington D.C.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Sykes, Emilia Strong [D-OH-13]
ID: S001223
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 20 nodes and 24 connections
Total contributions: $70,050
Top Donors - Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
- +Surface Transportation confidence 0.90
Sec. 2 extends funding for technology and innovation programs related to highway and intermodal transportation systems through fiscal years 2027-2031, benefiting surface transportation industries. Sec. 5 amends the University Transportation Centers program, extending funding through 2027-2031. Sec. 6 creates an open research initiative for advanced transportation research. Sec. 7 mandates a study on emerging headlamp technologies and safety effects. Sec. 8 develops a strategy to encourage utiliz
- +Construction & Engineering confidence 0.80
Sec. 8's strategy to promote utilization of reclaimed asphalt pavement on roadways nationwide, including development of technical standards, best practices, and testing methodologies, directly benefits construction and engineering firms involved in road building and materials production. Sec. 9's rail research programs, including safety standards for hazardous materials transport, may also benefit construction engineering firms involved in rail infrastructure projects.
- +Automotive (Legacy) confidence 0.70
Sec. 7's study on emerging headlamp technologies (LED, matrix LED) and their effects on driver visibility, glare exposure, and roadway safety could lead to recommendations that benefit automotive manufacturers through improved safety standards or new technology adoption. Sec. 8's reclaimed asphalt pavement strategy may improve road surfaces, benefiting vehicle operation and potentially reducing wear on automobiles.
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.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy are tangentially related, as they both discuss transportation, but the bill focuses on funding and bureaucratic aspects, whereas the policy emphasizes reforming the Department of Transportation's role and prioritizing meaningful infrastructure investments. The alignment is weak due to the bill's lack of attention to the policy's core objectives, such as reducing federal involvement in project selection and allocation of taxpayer funds."
— 619 — 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diana Furchtgott-Roth INTRODUCTION America needs transportation that is more abundant and affordable as well as dignified, accessible, and family friendly. Transportation plays a vital role in the prosperity and flourishing of the United States. Americans use trucks, tankers, and trains to keep our supply chains running and cars, transit, and planes to go where we want to go. Two hundred and forty years ago, Adam Smith recognized that connections were a bedrock of society because they stimulate specialization, innovation, and capital investment. In the following decades, America’s growth was made possible by transportation—first ports and transatlantic shipping, then roads, canals, and eventually railroads pushing westward to create the nation we call home. Access to transportation is part of what made our country great. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with a requested fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $142 billion,1 was originally intended simply to provide a policy framework for transportation safety, rulemaking, and regulation. However, it has evolved to believe that its role is “to deliver the world’s leading transportation system”2—that is, to select individual projects and allocate taxpayer funds in the actual planning, developing, and building of transportation assets. Such a role is held more appropriately by transportation asset owners: primarily states, munic- ipalities, and the private sector. In addition to providing a safety and regulatory framework through its 11 sub- components, known as modes, the department has become a de facto grantmaking and lending organization. DOT provides approximately $50 billion in discretionary — 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA);
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy are tangentially related as they both pertain to transportation, but the bill's focus on bureaucratic processes and funding allocations does not align with the policy's emphasis on promoting abundant, affordable, and dignified transportation through a more limited federal role. The policy seeks to reduce federal intervention in project selection and allocation, whereas the bill appears to perpetuate it."
— 619 — 19 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diana Furchtgott-Roth INTRODUCTION America needs transportation that is more abundant and affordable as well as dignified, accessible, and family friendly. Transportation plays a vital role in the prosperity and flourishing of the United States. Americans use trucks, tankers, and trains to keep our supply chains running and cars, transit, and planes to go where we want to go. Two hundred and forty years ago, Adam Smith recognized that connections were a bedrock of society because they stimulate specialization, innovation, and capital investment. In the following decades, America’s growth was made possible by transportation—first ports and transatlantic shipping, then roads, canals, and eventually railroads pushing westward to create the nation we call home. Access to transportation is part of what made our country great. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with a requested fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget of $142 billion,1 was originally intended simply to provide a policy framework for transportation safety, rulemaking, and regulation. However, it has evolved to believe that its role is “to deliver the world’s leading transportation system”2—that is, to select individual projects and allocate taxpayer funds in the actual planning, developing, and building of transportation assets. Such a role is held more appropriately by transportation asset owners: primarily states, munic- ipalities, and the private sector. In addition to providing a safety and regulatory framework through its 11 sub- components, known as modes, the department has become a de facto grantmaking and lending organization. DOT provides approximately $50 billion in discretionary
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy are tangentially related through their focus on transportation, but the bill's emphasis on research and development and bureaucratic restructuring does not significantly align with the policy's objectives. The policy appears to focus on broader themes of leadership, innovation, and regulatory reform, which are not directly addressed in the bill."
— 640 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2023 Budget Highlights, p. 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot. gov/files/2022-03/Budget_Highlights_FY2023.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] Strategic Plan FY22– FY26, p. 2, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-09/DOT%20DEIA%20Strategic%20Plan. pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 3. 23 U.S. Code §§ 601–609, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23 (accessed March 3, 2023). 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 248 (December 27, 2019), pp. 71714–71734, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/361831/fed-reg-published-final-admin- rule.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Build America Bureau, “About the Build America Bureau,” last updated October 24, 2022, https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/about (accessed March 3, 2023). 6. S. 622, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law No. 94-163, 94th Congress, December 22, 1995, https:// www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-89/STATUTE-89-Pg871.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 7. 42 U.S. Code Chapter 85, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-85 (accessed March 3, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 84 (May 2, 2022), pp. 25710–26092, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05- 02/pdf/2022-07200.pdf (accessed March 10, 2023). 9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 235 (December 7, 2020), pp. 78707–78718, https://www.transportation.gov/ sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/Defining%20Unfair%20or%20Deceptive%20Practices%20Final%20Rule%20-%20 85%20FR%2078707.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, “Procedures in Regulating Unfair or Deceptive Practices,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 22 (February 2, 2022), pp. 5655–5659, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-02/pdf/2022-01589.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2023, p. 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/FAA_Budget_Estimates_FY2023.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 12. Robert W. Poole, Jr., Organization and Innovation in Air Traffic Control, Hudson Institute Initiative on Future Innovation, November 2013, https://www.hudson.org/sites/default/files/researchattachments/ attachment/1199/poole_hi_res.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). Also published subsequently as Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 431, January 2014, https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/air_traffic_ control_organization_innovation.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 13. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 14. S. 6, Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Public Law 88-365, 88th Congress, July 9, 1964, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg302-2.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, “About Us,” last updated March 23, 2022, https:// www.maritime.dot.gov/about-us (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. H.R. 10378, Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Public Law 66-261, 66th Congress, June 5, 1920, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/41/STATUTE-41-Pg988.pdf (accessed March 3, 2023).
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.