Bill Overview
Title: Federal Mask Mandate Limitations Act
Description: This bill requires prior congressional approval of any executive agency mandate that requires wearing masks or face coverings on commercial aircraft, trains, vessels, and public transportation. Before such a mandate may take effect, an agency must publish in the Federal Register and provide Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with scientific data, cost-benefit and economic impact analyses, and other information about the mandate's rationale. The GAO must, within 15 days, provide a report to Congress that assesses (1) the agency's compliance with the bill's provisions, and (2) the effect of the mask mandate on private-sector activity. Generally, the mandate shall not go into effect unless Congress approves it through a joint resolution; the bill sets procedures for the consideration of the joint resolution. However, the mandate may temporarily go into effect without congressional approval if the President determines the mandate is necessary to address (1) imminent health or safety threats or other emergencies, (2) the enforcement of criminal laws, or (3) national security.
Sponsors: Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6]
Target Audience
Population: People who use public transportation, including commercial aircraft, trains, vessels, and public transportation systems, worldwide
Estimated Size: 120000000
- The bill affects the ability of federal agencies to implement mask mandates on public transportation, which includes commercial airlines, trains, and public transit systems.
- Individuals who use public transportation, including commercial flights, are directly impacted since mask mandates can influence their health precautions during travel.
- If agencies cannot easily enforce mask mandates, there is potential for increased exposure to airborne illnesses for travelers.
- Employees and staff working in the transportation sector would also be affected by the provisions of mask mandates, as their safety protocols could change.
- During a pandemic, for instance, mask mandates can serve as a critical preventive measure for both customers and employees using the transportation systems.
- Any mask policy change can potentially influence the public's perception of safety in public transportation, impacting ridership.
- About 10% of the global population uses some form of public transportation on a regular basis, though the frequency and type of usage can vary significantly across regions.
Reasoning
- The policy could directly affect individuals who frequently use public transportation for work, travel, or leisure, by changing the conditions under which mask mandates are implemented.
- Healthcare professionals might see this policy as a hindrance to rapid responses in health crises, affecting public health indirectly.
- Those with medical conditions sensitive to airborne illnesses may experience changes in travel habits based on perceived safety.
- Employees in the transportation sector may have a vested interest in these mandates for their own health and safety at work.
- The budget clearly limits large-scale implementation and suggests careful consideration of where and how these measures will apply most effectively.
Simulated Interviews
Public Transit Commuter (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on the subway and appreciate initiatives that maintain public health. If mask mandates are harder to implement, I might feel less safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Flight Attendant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mask mandates make me feel safer at work. If approval is delayed in emergencies, I'm concerned about exposure.
- The policy could make health measures less predictable, which worries me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Healthcare Professional (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that delay or complicate protective measures concern me, particularly during health emergencies.
- I trust scientific guidance and prefer streamlined approaches for health mandates in crises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am supportive of both health and economic considerations.
- Efficient response in health crises is essential, but so is freedom from unnecessary regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer environments where collective health is prioritized. If masks are less enforced, I'll evaluate my travel choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more confident travelling with mask mandates. The possibility of less stringent rules makes me cautious about future plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Logistics Coordinator (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Constant changes in mask policies could disrupt routine and management of logistics.
- I prefer consistency in mandates to plan effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
High School Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changing mandates scares me; I trust current science's decisions regarding masks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Public Health Official (Boston, MA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could dramatically interrupt timely health interventions when needed.
- I anticipate needing to educate the public more on the importance of reactions and preemptive health measures in transport.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Decision-making should respect scientific findings, but also lean on flexibility for innovation in safety measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $2100000 (Low: $1050000, High: $5250000)
Year 3: $2205000 (Low: $1102500, High: $5512500)
Year 5: $2315250 (Low: $1157625, High: $5788125)
Year 10: $2567763 (Low: $1283882, High: $6429419)
Year 100: $6865805 (Low: $3432903, High: $17164512)
Key Considerations
- The bill introduces additional legislative steps before mask mandates can be implemented, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive.
- The burden on GAO to provide reports within 15 days could strain its resources.
- The effect on the ridership of public transportation due to varying mandates needs careful consideration.