Fairness in Veterans’ Education Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1872

Last Updated: February 3, 2026

Fairness in Veterans’ Education Act

HR. 1872, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

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

The money

$82,443 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 Veterans Affairs" section, p. 688-691 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 (Amended) by Voice Vote.

April 8, 2025

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 Fairness in Veterans' Education Act (HR 1872). A bill that reeks of sentimentalism and bureaucratic inefficiency. Let's dissect its implications for my empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for certain contributions made towards Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. In essence, it's a handout to veterans, attempting to rectify perceived injustices in education benefits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill modifies Section 3327(f)(3) of title 38, United States Code, by striking "together" and all that follows through "(as applicable)." This change is expected to take effect on August 1, 2025. In practical terms, this means the government will be shelling out more funds to veterans for education assistance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are veterans who have contributed towards Post-9/11 Educational Assistance. However, as a savvy businessman, I recognize that this legislation also affects my interests indirectly. The increased spending on veterans' education benefits will likely divert resources from more pressing matters – like deregulation and tax cuts.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a purely economic perspective, this bill represents a minor blip on the radar. Estimated costs are in the tens of millions, hardly a drop in the ocean compared to my annual profits. However, I must consider the precedent it sets: government intervention in education benefits can lead to further meddling in the market.

As a thought leader at the Cato Institute and a key donor to the Heritage Foundation, I will ensure that this bill's passage is met with a chorus of criticism from libertarian think tanks. We'll argue that this handout stifles innovation in education and creates dependency on government largesse.

Ultimately, HR 1872 is a minor annoyance, but one that warrants attention from my team of lobbyists and policy analysts. I will instruct them to monitor the bill's progress and prepare countermeasures to mitigate any potential impact on my business interests.

Projected costs: $50 million - $100 million Potential ROI for my empire: -$10 million (due to increased regulatory scrutiny) Recommendation: Oppose HR 1872, citing inefficiencies and market distortions.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$82,443

14 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$82,443

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

TARPLEY, JAMES

2 transactions

$13,200

BURKHARDT, JOAN

2 transactions

$13,068

COUNTRYMAN, LOUEEN

3 transactions

$9,900

ARCHER, LYNNE

2 transactions

$6,870

DAMBROSIO, KATHLEEN

2 transactions

$6,600

HIMEBAUGH, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,270

BURZYNSKI, STANISLAW

1 transaction

$3,435

PERRIN, JOE

1 transaction

$3,300

KOVSCHAK, ANGELA

1 transaction

$3,300

BALLER, JIM

1 transaction

$3,300

HAYNES, JOHN T

1 transaction

$3,300

FLETCHER, J'MELLE

1 transaction

$3,300

GRAVES, WILLIAM E

1 transaction

$3,300

COHEN, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3]

ID: V000135

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Dec 9, 2024

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

OrganizationCRANDON, WI

$3,300

Sep 17, 2024

AIPAC PAC CONDUIT ACCOUNT

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Oct 23, 2024

ALLIANCE OF BANKERS FOR WISCONSIN

OrganizationMADISON, WI

$250

Apr 23, 2024

ANDERSON, JOHN R. MR.

ANDERSON ENTERPRISES LLC • OWNER

IndividualROCKFORD, IL

$10,000

Dec 19, 2023

BROIN, JEFF

POET LLC • CEO

IndividualSIOUX FALLS, SD

$6,600

Aug 24, 2023

UIHLEIN, RICHARD E. MR.

ULINE INC. • CEO

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$6,600

Feb 28, 2023

LEVY, EDWARD C.

EDW. C. LEVY CO. • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

LEVY, EDWARD C.

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

May 6, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 32 nodes and 23 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $92,343

Top Donors - Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
Section 2 amends title 38 to repay members of the Armed Forces for certain contributions made towards Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, potentially reducing demand for for-profit education services (cited in SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE)

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 Veterans Affairs

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 688-691AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill amends VA statute to ensure fair reimbursement for veterans' education contributions, directly supporting Project 2025's objective of improving VA benefits and services for veterans."

Key themes:veterans education benefitsVA administrationfairness/equityPost-9/11 GI BillVA benefit reform

— 655 — Department of Veterans Affairs ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Division, VHA Directive 1003, “VHA Veteran Patient Experience,” April 14, 2020, pp. 1 and B-1. 2. S. 2372, VA Mission Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress. gov/115/plaws/publ182/PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA History Office, “VA History,” last updated May 27, 2021, https://www. va.gov/HISTORY/VA_History/Overview.asp (accessed January 28, 2023). 4. 38 U.S. Code § 1116, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1116 (accessed January 28, 2023). 5. S. 3373, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022), Public Law No. 117-168, 117th Congress, August 10, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ168/PLAW-117publ168.pdf (accessed January 28, 2023). 6. H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division S, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). Known variously as the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse and Physician Assistant Retention and Income Security Enhancement Act and the VA Nurse and Physician Assistant RAISE Act. 7. See note 5, supra.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reimbursing veterans for Post-9/11 GI Bill contributions, while the Project 2025 education section emphasizes K-12 school choice, state opt-out of federal programs, and accreditation reform; there is only a tangential connection through the broader topic of federal education benefits."

Key themes:education benefitsveteransfederal education policy

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reimbursing veterans for Post-9/11 GI Bill contributions, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on K-12 parental rights, FERPA/PPRA enforcement, gender ideology, and school choice. Both involve federal education policy, but their objectives and target populations differ substantially."

Key themes:educationfederal assistancebenefits

— 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and — 346 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates. l The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls. School officials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employ- ees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a different “gender” while at school—without notifying parents. In California, New Jersey, and certain districts in Kansas and elsewhere, educators are prohibited from informing parents about children’s confusion over their sex if the children do not want their parents to know. Such policies allow schools to drive a wedge between parents and children. The next Administration should work with Congress to provide an example to state lawmakers by requiring K–12 districts under federal jurisdiction, including Wash- ington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools, with legislation stating that: l No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public education employee or contractor shall use a pronoun in addressing a student that is different from that student’s biological sex without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians. l No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions. State lawmakers should use this model and adopt similar provisions for public schools within their borders. Federal lawmakers should not allow public school employees to keep secrets about a child from that child’s parents. Advance School Choice Policies The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher program providing scholarships to children from low-income families living in the nation’s capital to attend a private school of choice, is capped at $20 million annually and limited to

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses veterans' education benefit reimbursement, which tangentially supports service member welfare and could aid recruitment/retention, but it does not directly relate to the Project 2025 Defense priorities of exportability, FMS process reform, or defense industrial base collaboration."

Key themes:veterans supportrecruitment and retentioneducation benefitsdefense personnel

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10 — 102 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Immediately fund more contracting capacity in all services to decrease the contracting timeline and improve the delivery of defense articles to our global partners. 2. Rationalize and speed arms sales decision-making to preclude our enemies from exploiting bureaucratic slothfulness and allow us to manage the development of indigenous defense industrial bases. DOD PERSONNEL The men and women of America’s armed forces are the most critical component of our national defense strategy, but in recent years, they have been overextended, undervalued, and insufficiently resourced. Their families help them to carry the burden of service, but the assistance they receive is disproportionately less than the sacrifices they make. Young civilians who would thrive in a military environ- ment are disenfranchised when educators and influencers discourage them from learning about military service and preparing for the honor of wearing Ameri- ca’s uniform. The United States military is an extraordinary institution, staffed by exceptional people who have defended our nation and changed the course of history, but the Biden Administration, through word and deed, has treated the armed forces as just another place to work. We must restore our military to a place of honor and respect and recruit and retain the individuals who will meet the rigorous standards of excellence that are required for membership in the world’s greatest fighting force. Needed Reforms l Rescue recruiting and retention. Recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations and is expected to be even worse in 2023. Some of the problems are self-inflicted and ongoing. The recruiting problem is not service-specific: It affects the entire Joint Force. 1. Appoint a Special Assistant to the President who will maintain liaison with Congress, DOD, and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention. 2. Improve recruiting by suspending the use of the recently introduced MHS Genesis system that uses private medical records of potential recruits at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), creating unnecessary delays and unwarranted rejections.11 3. Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Fairness in Veterans' Education Act focuses on reimbursing military service members for education benefit contributions under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which is unrelated to the Department of Education policies outlined in Project 2025, such as guidance document reform, First Amendment protections in grants, or reducing bachelor's degree requirements for federal jobs."

— 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future. — 358 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NEW AGENCY POLICIES THAT DON’T REQUIRE NEW LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS TO ENACT Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints l The Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed on behalf of families regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). l At the same time, the Department of Education should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA. This portal should also contain an explanation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and public school procedures to demonstrate that the law does not deprive parents of their right to access any school health records. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program In 2011, Congress added new requirements to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program stating that participating private schools must submit to site visits by the program administrator, inform prospective students about the school’s accreditation status, mandate that teachers of core subjects have bachelor’s degrees, and require participating students to take some form of nationally norm-referenced test. Notably, the 2011 reauthorization also required, for the first time, that participating private schools be accredited or be on a path to accreditation. The 2017 reauthorization went further, requiring that each participating school supply a certificate of accreditation to the administering entity upon program entry, demonstrating that the school is fully accredited before being allowed to participate. The list of approved accreditors is entirely too small to serve the mission of the diverse schools in the nation’s capital. l Although the accreditation regulations should be removed entirely by Congress, in the meantime, the next President should issue an executive order expanding the list of allowable accreditors. Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence The next President should issue a series of executive orders requiring: l An accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/ gender ideology, l A review of outcomes for GEAR UP and the 21st Century grants programs,

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. Jackson, Ronny

SAFE CATTLE Act

119/hr/7466

Transatlantic Academic Security and Risk Mitigation Act

119/hr/7616

Blast Overpressure Research and Mitigation Task Force Act

119/hr/6444

Back to All Bills

Fairness in Veterans’ Education Act