Foster Youth Workforce Opportunity Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7343
Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]

ID: M001222

Follow the money

The bill

Foster Youth Workforce Opportunity Act

HR. 7343, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]

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

The money

$125,700 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 509-511 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 556.

May 10, 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 inhabitants of Congress. The "Foster Youth Workforce Opportunity Act" - because who doesn't love a good title that sounds like it was focus-grouped by a room full of tone-deaf bureaucrats?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Oh, please, let's not pretend this bill is about anything other than checking boxes on the "We Care About Foster Kids" checklist. The main purpose is to expand education and workforce training opportunities for youth who have experienced foster care, because apparently, that's a novel idea that just occurred to our elected officials.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends section 477 of the Social Security Act to make some minor tweaks, like changing the age requirements and expanding the definition of "remedial education." Wow, I bet the lobbyists for community colleges and vocational schools are just thrilled. It's not like they had anything to do with drafting this bill or anything.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: foster youth, educators, workforce training programs, and of course, the politicians who get to pat themselves on the back for "helping" these poor, vulnerable kids. Meanwhile, the real stakeholders - the ones with the deep pockets and influence - are probably popping champagne corks in their K Street offices.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's be real, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a token effort to address the systemic issues plaguing foster care, but hey, at least it looks good on paper. The potential impact? Maybe, just maybe, some foster youth will get access to slightly better education and job training. But let's not hold our breath - after all, this is Congress we're talking about.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of " Legislative Placebo Syndrome" - it looks like it's doing something, but in reality, it's just a sugar pill designed to make everyone feel better without actually addressing the underlying problems. The real disease here is the chronic lack of meaningful action from our elected officials, coupled with a healthy dose of cynicism and a complete disregard for the well-being of the people they're supposed to serve.

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with flying colors, because who wouldn't want to be seen as supporting foster youth? But don't expect it to actually make a dent in the problems faced by these kids. After all, that would require real leadership and a willingness to challenge the status quo - two things that are in short supply on Capitol Hill.

Related Topics

Housing & Urban DevelopmentEducation & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$125,700
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$1,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$124,700

No PAC contributions found

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
GROVER, JACOB
1 transaction
$13,200
2
BEREN, ADAM
1 transaction
$6,600
3
SHEAR, HERB
1 transaction
$6,600
4
STAHL, LEWIS
1 transaction
$6,600
5
DARIVOFF, PHILIP
1 transaction
$6,600
6
PACKER, PAUL
1 transaction
$6,600
7
SINGER, PAUL
1 transaction
$6,600
8
FRIEDMAN, MARK
1 transaction
$6,600
9
HABER, JAMES
1 transaction
$6,600
10
MORENO, KEVIN
1 transaction
$6,600
11
FISHER, KENNETH
1 transaction
$6,600
12
FISHER, SHERRILYN
1 transaction
$6,600
13
KLINGENSTEIN, THOMAS
1 transaction
$6,600
14
SURACE, JAMES MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
15
SCHALL, BRIAN
1 transaction
$5,000
16
WEINBERG, RONALD
1 transaction
$5,000
17
SALZBERG, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$5,000
18
BLAHA, GEORGE
1 transaction
$3,900
19
STRUNK, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,500
20
HAWKINS, SHAFRON E
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3]

ID: E000296

Top Contributors

10

1
UNIVERSITY PLACE ASSOCIATES 3.0
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
2
BRIDGE ACROSS PA PAC
OrganizationBETHLEHEM, PA
$1,000
Jun 5, 2023
3
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$1,000
May 19, 2023
4
KLEINBARD LLC
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$500
Dec 28, 2023
5
ALLIE, DONNA
TEAM CLEAN INC. • OWNER
IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
6
BURNS, PATRICK J.
METRO PHILLY MANAGEMENT • PRESIDENT
IndividualDREXEL HILL, PA
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
7
MEZZAROBA, ALBERT
SELF • ATTORNEY
IndividualMERION STATION, PA
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
8
CORDARO, LAURA
EBRM CORP • DEVELOPER
IndividualGLADWYNE, PA
$3,300
Dec 25, 2023
9
DEON SR, PASQUALE T
PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT • REAL ESTATE
IndividualFAIRLESS HILLS, PA
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
10
CRAWFORD, STEVEN M.
S.R. WOJDAK & ASSOCIATES, LP • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023

Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]

ID: M000317

Top Contributors

10

1
M&T BANK
OrganizationMOUNT KISCO, NY
$118
Sep 21, 2024
2
M&T BANK
OrganizationMOUNT KISCO, NY
$101
Sep 21, 2024
3
SIDIROPOULOS, JIM MR.
DELPHI PH • CONTRACTOR
IndividualSTATEN ISLAND, NY
$5,600
Jul 23, 2024
4
BERGER, RICHARD MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOBOKEN, NJ
$5,000
May 17, 2024
5
LOEB, JOHN L. MR. JR
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPURCHASE, NY
$5,000
Apr 22, 2024
6
BAUMRIND, MARTIN M. MR.
SELF • LANDLORD
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$5,000
Sep 16, 2024
7
DUIT, JAMES A
CONTRIBUTION OF CONCEPTION LLC • EXEC
IndividualEDMOND, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
DUIT, PAMELA A
CONTRIBUTION OF CONCEPTION LLC • EXEC
IndividualEDMOND, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
9
LAUDER, RONALD S.
SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
BANKE, BARBARA R. MS.
CHAIRMAN • JACKSON FAMILY WINES
IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA
$3,300
Nov 17, 2023

Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3]

ID: S001172

Top Contributors

10

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jul 25, 2024
2
PARKER, SEAN
SEAN N PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$13,200
Feb 28, 2024
3
ANDERSON, S MICKEY MR.
BAXTER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP • PRESIDENT
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$13,200
Apr 6, 2023
4
STINSON, KENNETH E. MR.
PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$13,200
Apr 6, 2023
5
CASSLING, MICHAEL MR.
CASSLING DIAGNOSTIC • PRESIDENT AND CEO
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$13,200
Aug 3, 2023
6
HAWKINS, FRED H. MR. JR.
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY • CEO
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$6,600
Nov 5, 2023
7
KORALESKI, JACK MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$6,600
May 1, 2023
8
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE • CEO/ CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jun 20, 2023
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Jun 21, 2023
10
DUGAN, VINCENT J. MR.
TREGO DUGAN AVIATION OF GRAND ISLAND • PRESIDENT
IndividualNORTH PLATTE, NE
$6,600
Sep 28, 2023

Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

ID: H001082

Top Contributors

10

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
PACBANNING, CA
$2,000
Jun 15, 2024
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
PACBANNING, CA
$1,000
May 26, 2023
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTABLEQUAIL, OK
$3,300
Nov 14, 2023
4
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Feb 10, 2023
5
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Jun 15, 2024
6
OSAGE NATION
OrganizationPAWHUSKA, OK
$3,300
Jun 18, 2024
7
UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,000
Sep 30, 2023
8
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KYMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,500
Oct 13, 2023
9
SYCUAN BAN OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,500
Jul 15, 2024
10
MARSH POINTE MANAGEMENT LLC
OrganizationTAHLEOUAH, OK
$2,000
Aug 29, 2023

Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1]

ID: S001183

Top Contributors

10

1
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 20, 2023
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 20, 2023
4
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
5
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
May 23, 2024
6
WSS
Organization
$3,300
Jul 3, 2024
7
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
8
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2024
9
MASHANTUCKET (WESTERN) PEQUOT TRIBE
OrganizationLEDYARD, CT
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
10
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$2,500
Jul 25, 2024

Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]

ID: D000096

Top Contributors

10

1
CONSULATE OF JAMAICA
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
2
PLASTY PAC
OrganizationARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
3
DLV
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$955
Oct 10, 2023
4
AL BOSTAAN SERVICES
OrganizationBRIDGEVIEW, IL
$500
Jun 30, 2023
5
COMMITTEE TO ELECT JUDGE THOMAS MORE DONNELLY
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$500
Jun 30, 2023
6
MELISSA FOR CHICAGO
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$500
Jun 30, 2023
7
ALLEN, ANDRE
RIGHTEOUS WORKS • BUNDING ENG.
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Sep 18, 2023
8
CHEN, YONG
EATON • ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
IndividualBURBANK, IL
$3,300
Aug 2, 2023
9
CHOPRA, PARAMJIT S.
FIELD MUSEUM • FUNDRASING
IndividualGLENVIEW, IA
$3,300
Sep 5, 2023
10
CUCCO, FRANK T
IMPACT NETWORKING • CEO/PARTNER
IndividualKILDEER, IL
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 71 nodes and 36 connections (50 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $180,419

Top Donors - Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

1 Org20 Individuals

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 Health and Human Services

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 509-511AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding workforce and education opportunities for foster youth, which aligns with Project 2025's broader child welfare goals under the Adoption Reform section, particularly in supporting vulnerable children transitioning to adulthood. While not directly addressing teen pregnancy prevention or adoption agency protections, it shares thematic ground in improving outcomes for at-risk youth through HHS-administered programs."

Key themes:foster carechild welfareyouth transitionHHS programsadolescent support

— 477 — Department of Health and Human Services Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Educa- tion Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement. In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encour- aged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding. Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health met- rics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same param- eters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion text- books. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program. Adoption Reform. There are roughly 400,000 children across the nation on the waiting list for foster care and 100,000 awaiting adoptive families, and the opioid/ fentanyl crisis is putting more at risk every day. Unfortunately, many of the faith- based adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father. HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation61 that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children — 478 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise in their forever homes. ACF and OCR should also survey their programs to consider whether additional waivers of HHS grant conditions—waivers the Biden Admin- istration revoked in 2021—are needed for faith-based agencies. Additionally, Congress should pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act62 to ensure that providers and organizations cannot be subjected to discrimination for providing adoption and foster care services based on their beliefs about marriage. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The Office of Refugee Resettlement should be moved to the Department of Homeland Security. Having health and welfare functions managed by HHS and border security functions managed by DHS has created intolerable failures in both. HHS and ORR have forgotten their original refugee-resettlement mission and instead have provided a panoply of free programs that incentivize people to come to the U.S. illegally. Even more troubling, ORR has too often placed children into dangerous situations when releasing them into the country. Nearly all of HHS’s care, custody, and placement of children is done through cooperative agreements with private agencies, many of which may have broken federal law by inducing or being accomplices in illegal immigration. Those arrangements could be handled far more effectively by DHS. Congress should reform the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act63 to transfer all ORR duties for unaccompanied alien children to DHS and eliminate the Flores settlement agreement.64 Regardless of where ORR’s functions reside, ORR staff and care providers should never be allowed to facilitate abortions for unaccompanied children in its cus- tody, including by transporting minors across state lines from pro-life states to abortion-friendly states. Pregnant, unaccompanied girls in ORR custody should be treated with dignity, not trafficked across state lines to be victimized by the abortion industry. ORR should withdraw its policy of allowing elective abortions for children in ORR care and issue a new policy of instructing care providers not to allow girls to be transported for elective abortions. HHS OGC and the White House should insist that DOJ fight to defend that policy up to the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Dobbs. Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Congress established Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1935 to assist single-parent families who were suffering financially from the loss of a bread-winning husband and father. Within two decades, however, the majority of families receiving aid were depen- dent because of paternal abandonment rather than death. Today, nearly a third of America’s children live without a father present in the home, and a fourth of them are enrolled to receive child support. The glaring issue in child support enforcement today is a non-resident father’s ability to provide full or consistent child support payments. The literature reflects this divide as fathers have been categorized as “deadbeat” dads, then as “deadbroke”

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding workforce and education opportunities for foster youth, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes school choice, federal program opt-outs, and accreditation reform in higher education—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general education support."

Key themes:education accessworkforce traininghigher education

— 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 Health and Human Services

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt touch on foster care and child welfare within HHS, but the bill focuses on education and workforce training for foster youth while the policy emphasizes father involvement, terminating parental rights, eliminating Head Start, and other unrelated initiatives, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:foster carechild welfareyouth servicesHHS

— 482 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise sociological understanding of what it means to be a father—not a gender- neutral parent—from social science, psychology, personal testimonies, etc. ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES (ACYF) l Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly. ACYF is currently considering different programs to encourage parents, especially fathers, to engage with their children in foster care. While these program ideas and initiatives are still in the early planning stages, promoting responsible parenthood to reintegrate children or at least keep a consistent male figure in the minor’s life is crucial. At the same time, in cases where the father or mother does not make a sincere or serious effort to be involved in the child’s upbringing, termination of parental rights for children in foster care should be swift. OFFICE OF HEAD START (OHS) l Eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low-income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. With a budget of more than $11 billion, the program should function to protect and educate minors. Sadly, it has done exactly the opposite. In fact, “approximately 1 in 4 grant recipients had incidents in which children were abused, left unsupervised, or released to an unauthorized person between October 2015 and May 2020.”68 Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS. At the very least, the program’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements should be rescinded. ADMINISTRATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING (ACL) l Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law. Instead of embracing PAS, policymakers should focus on the benefits of palliative care, which works to improve a patient’s quality of life by alleviating pain and other distressing symptoms of a serious illness. HHS ACL should survey their programs to ensure that they are supporting vulnerable persons of age or disability and are not facilitating or encouraging participation in PAS. — 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills