The bill
Acknowledging November 8, 2025, as "National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Day".
HRES. 867, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.
Acknowledging November 8, 2025, as "National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Day".
Download PDFBill ID: 119/hres/867
Last Updated: November 7, 2025
Sponsored by
Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29]
ID: R000620
Follow the money
The sponsor
Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$89,200 raised
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
70% match to Project 2025
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 356-358 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
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 Senate
🏛️
House 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 meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress, because what's more pressing than declaring a national day for STEM? I mean, who needs actual policy changes when you can just slap a label on it and call it a day?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to acknowledge November 8, 2025, as National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Day. Wow, I bet the nation was holding its breath waiting for this declaration. The objectives are to recognize the importance of STEM education, celebrate the STEM ecosystem, and encourage collaboration across federal agencies and private entities.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a feel-good, symbolic gesture that doesn't require any real action or commitment from Congress. The "resolved" clauses are just empty words, urging people to observe the day with "appropriate programs and activities." Because, you know, that's exactly what we need – more vague, unenforceable language.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include STEM educators, students, businesses, and organizations. But let's be real, this resolution doesn't actually do anything to support them. It's just a PR stunt to make Congress look like they care about STEM education. The stakeholders are the usual suspects – politicians looking for photo ops, lobbyists trying to curry favor, and voters who will forget about this resolution by next week.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is zero. Zilch. Nada. It's a non-binding, symbolic gesture that won't lead to any tangible changes in STEM education or policy. The implications are that Congress is more interested in grandstanding than actual governance. This resolution is just a symptom of the larger disease – a lack of meaningful action on pressing issues and a reliance on empty rhetoric.
In medical terms, this resolution is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make them feel better for a few minutes, but it won't actually cure anything. And that's exactly what Congress is doing here – pretending to care about STEM education while ignoring the real problems facing our nation.
Related Topics
Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$89,200
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$33,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$56,100
No PAC contributions found
1
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
$6,600
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
$5,300
3
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
$5,000
4
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
$3,300
5
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
$3,300
6
VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS
$3,300
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
$3,300
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
$3,000
No committee contributions found
1
ELIZONDO, MIGUEL
$6,600
2
ALI, IDRIS
$3,300
3
ALI, MUSTAFA
$3,300
4
ALI, SAMIA
$3,300
5
BEIGI, REZA
$3,300
6
EMAMI, NAZANIN
$3,300
7
HOSSEINZADEH, MADJID
$3,300
8
JACOBS, IRWIN
$3,300
9
KANONE, AHMED MAHMOUD ALI
$3,300
10
KASMAI, MEHDI
$3,300
11
MOHAMED, KAMAL
$3,300
12
ASZKENAZY, SEVERYN
$3,300
13
DELANEY, M. QUINN
$3,300
14
MILKEN, LANCE
$3,300
15
PLA, GEORGE
$3,300
16
RAMOS, JAMES
$3,300
Donor Network - Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 56 nodes and 30 connections (64 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $89,200
Top Donors - Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29]
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
8 Orgs16 Individuals
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
- +AI & Cloud Infrastructureconfidence 0.80
Section (3) reaffirms responsibility to ensure students have access to STEM education including technological literacy, digital access, and opportunities to experience computer science and artificial intelligence; this encourages AI and cloud infrastructure development.
- +Semiconductors & Hardwareconfidence 0.70
Section (3) mentions technological literacy and computer science, which supports semiconductor and hardware industries by fostering future workforce and demand.
- +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.60
Section (4) encourages STEM businesses to engage with schools; big tech platforms benefit from increased STEM education and future talent pipeline.
- +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60
Section (3) includes digital access, which supports broadband and telecommunications infrastructure expansion.
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
Industries this bill HELPS
- from 3 contributions
- JACOBS, IRWIN$3,300
- RAEL, JACOB JUDE$600
- Telecommunications$3,250from 3 contributions
- GILES, JOHNNIE$2,500
- FRANCO, MIGUEL$500
- MUNOZ, LEO$250
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 Education
Moderate
Vector: 63%Pages: 356-358AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"HRES 867 promotes STEM education awareness and collaboration, which aligns with Project 2025's broader concern about declining student achievement in math and science, though the bill does not address the policy's core critique of federal overreach or advocate for reducing the Department of Education's role."
Key themes:STEM educationstudent achievementmath proficiencyeducation reformfederal role in education
— 323 — Department of Education l Stopping executive overreach. Congress should set policy—not Presidents through pen-and-phone executive orders, and not agencies through regulations and guidance. National emergency declarations should expire absent express congressional authorization within 60 days after the date of the declaration. Bolstered by an ever-growing cabal of special interests that thrive off federal largesse, the infrastructure that supports America’s costly federal intervention in education from early childhood through graduate school has entrenched itself. But, unlike the public sector bureaucracies, public employee unions, and the higher education lobby, families and students do not need a Department of Education to learn, grow, and improve their lives. It is critical that the next Administration tackle this entrenched infrastructure. NEEDED REFORMS Federal intervention in education has failed to promote student achievement. After trillions spent since 1965 on the collective programs now housed within the walls of the department, student academic outcomes remain stagnant. On the main National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading out- comes on the 2022 administration have remained unchanged over the past 30 years. Declines in math performance are even more concerning than students’ lack of progress on reading outcomes. Fourth- and eighth-grade math scores saw the largest decline since the assessments were first administered in 1990. Average fourth-grade math scores declined five points, and average eighth-grade math scores declined eight points. Just one-third of eighth graders nationally are proficient in reading and math. Just 27 percent of eighth graders were pro- ficient in math in 2022, and just 31 percent of eighth graders scored proficient in reading in 2022. The NAEP Long-term Trend Assessment shows academic stagnation since the 1970s, with particular stagnation in the reading scores of 13-year-old students since 1971, when the assessment was first administered. Math scores, though modestly improved, are still lackluster. Additionally, the department has created a “shadow” department of education operating in states across the country. Federal mandates, programs, and proclama- tions have spurred a hiring spree among state education agencies, with more than 48,000 employees currently on staff in state agencies across the country. Those employees are more than 10 times the number of employees (4,400)10 at the federal Department of Education, and their jobs largely entail reporting back to Washing- ton. Research conducted by The Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher finds that the federal government funds 41 percent of the salary costs of state educa- tion agencies.11 — 324 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 1 Trends in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading EIGHTH-GRADE READING, AVERAGE SCORES 270 265 263 260 260 255 1992 1994 1998 ’02’03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 FOURTH-GRADE READING, AVERAGE SCORES 225 220 220 217 215 210 1992 1994 1998 2000 ’02’03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 SOURCES: The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 4, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023), and The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 8, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org
Department of Education
Weak
Vector: 62%Pages: 356-358AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"HRES 867 is a symbolic resolution promoting STEM awareness and collaboration, while the Project 2025 Education section seeks to reduce federal intervention and dismantle the Department of Education. Both touch on improving education outcomes, but their approaches diverge significantly, resulting in only weak thematic overlap."
Key themes:STEM educationeducation improvementfederal role in education
— 323 — Department of Education l Stopping executive overreach. Congress should set policy—not Presidents through pen-and-phone executive orders, and not agencies through regulations and guidance. National emergency declarations should expire absent express congressional authorization within 60 days after the date of the declaration. Bolstered by an ever-growing cabal of special interests that thrive off federal largesse, the infrastructure that supports America’s costly federal intervention in education from early childhood through graduate school has entrenched itself. But, unlike the public sector bureaucracies, public employee unions, and the higher education lobby, families and students do not need a Department of Education to learn, grow, and improve their lives. It is critical that the next Administration tackle this entrenched infrastructure. NEEDED REFORMS Federal intervention in education has failed to promote student achievement. After trillions spent since 1965 on the collective programs now housed within the walls of the department, student academic outcomes remain stagnant. On the main National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading out- comes on the 2022 administration have remained unchanged over the past 30 years. Declines in math performance are even more concerning than students’ lack of progress on reading outcomes. Fourth- and eighth-grade math scores saw the largest decline since the assessments were first administered in 1990. Average fourth-grade math scores declined five points, and average eighth-grade math scores declined eight points. Just one-third of eighth graders nationally are proficient in reading and math. Just 27 percent of eighth graders were pro- ficient in math in 2022, and just 31 percent of eighth graders scored proficient in reading in 2022. The NAEP Long-term Trend Assessment shows academic stagnation since the 1970s, with particular stagnation in the reading scores of 13-year-old students since 1971, when the assessment was first administered. Math scores, though modestly improved, are still lackluster. Additionally, the department has created a “shadow” department of education operating in states across the country. Federal mandates, programs, and proclama- tions have spurred a hiring spree among state education agencies, with more than 48,000 employees currently on staff in state agencies across the country. Those employees are more than 10 times the number of employees (4,400)10 at the federal Department of Education, and their jobs largely entail reporting back to Washing- ton. Research conducted by The Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher finds that the federal government funds 41 percent of the salary costs of state educa- tion agencies.11
Department of Education
Weak
Vector: 61%Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and the Project 2025 education section address education policy, but HRES 867 is a symbolic STEM awareness day with no substantive policy changes, whereas Project 2025 focuses on school choice, opting out of federal programs, and accreditation reform—areas with little direct overlap."
Key themes:educationSTEM educationfederal role in 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
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.