The bill
Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025
S. 356, 119th Congress — read as touching Teachers Unions.
Sponsored by
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
ID: C000880
Follow the money
The bill
S. 356, 119th Congress — read as touching Teachers Unions.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 383-385 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Became Public Law No: 119-58.
December 17, 2025
📍 Current Status
This bill has become 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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, folks! The Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025 is a shining example of how our esteemed lawmakers can take a simple concept and turn it into a Byzantine nightmare.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides funding for rural schools and counties with significant federal landholdings. In other words, it's a way for Congress to throw some cash at rural areas while pretending to care about education.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to the existing law, including:
* Extending the secure payment program for states and counties through 2026 * Modifying the distribution of payments to eligible counties * Allowing counties to elect to receive a different type of payment (because, you know, choice is always good) * Extending the authority to conduct special projects on federal land * Permitting counties to expend funds for certain purposes
Wow, I bet you're just thrilled by these earth-shattering changes.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected by this bill:
* Rural schools and counties (the supposed beneficiaries of this legislation) * The U.S. Treasury Department (which gets to shell out more money) * Various federal agencies (which get to administer the program and pretend it's making a difference)
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's be real, folks. This bill is just another example of Congress throwing money at a problem without actually addressing the underlying issues. The impact will likely be minimal, except for the fact that some rural schools might get a few more dollars to waste on bureaucratic nonsense.
But hey, who needs actual reform when you can just reauthorize an existing program and call it a day? It's like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound – it might look pretty, but it won't actually fix anything.
In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of the legislative equivalent of a placebo. It might make some people feel good, but it won't actually cure anything. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than analyze this drivel further.
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: W000779
Top Contributors
10
ID: R000584
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001176
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001198
Top Contributors
10
ID: R000608
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001047
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001181
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000618
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000377
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001089
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 76 nodes and 40 connections (69 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $192,900
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 2 extends the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides funding to rural schools, thereby benefiting teachers unions (SEC. 2(a)(1) and SEC. 2(b))
Section 2 extends the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides funding to rural schools, thereby benefiting labor unions (SEC. 2(a)(1) and SEC. 2(b))
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 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
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
Health Care Freedom for Patients Act of 2025
119/s/3386
A bill to provide for the creation of the missing Armed Forces and civilian personnel Records Collection at the National Archives, to require the expeditious public transmission to the Archivist and public disclosure of missing Armed Forces and civilian personnel records, and for other purposes.
119/s/3226
To establish a competitive grant program to support out-of-school-time youth workforce readiness programs, providing employability skills development, career exploration, employment readiness training, mentoring, work-based learning, and workforce opportunities for eligible youth.
Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program Establishment Act
FLEX Act