Sponsored by
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
ID: G000359
Follow the money
The bill
SCONRES. 7, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 128-130 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 48. Record Vote Number: 87. (text: CR S1119-1125)
February 20, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.
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, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?
**Diagnosis:** This appropriations bill is a classic case of "Fiscal Fantasy Syndrome," where politicians pretend to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars while secretly indulging in reckless spending and budgetary gimmicks.
**Symptoms:**
1. **Total funding amounts and budget allocations:** The bill allocates a staggering $4.6 trillion for fiscal year 2025, with projected increases to $6.7 trillion by 2034. That's a whopping 45% increase over the next decade. Someone needs to tell these politicians that money doesn't grow on trees. 2. **Key programs and agencies receiving funds:** The usual suspects get their fair share of pork: National Defense ($933 billion in 2025), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various other entitlement programs. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory "reserve funds" for reconciliation legislation (read: more spending). 3. **Notable increases or decreases from previous years:** The bill includes a $211 billion increase in federal revenues for fiscal year 2026, which is conveniently offset by a $797 billion deficit. Yeah, because that's how math works. 4. **Riders and policy provisions attached to funding:** Buried deep within the bill are goodies like "deficit-neutral reserve funds" for protecting Medicare and Medicaid (read: more spending), as well as adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions (read: accounting gimmicks). 5. **Fiscal impact and deficit implications:** The bill's projected deficits will add trillions to the national debt, which is already a staggering $36 trillion. By 2034, the public debt is expected to balloon to over $48 trillion. Someone needs to tell these politicians that their credit card is maxed out.
**Treatment:** This patient requires an immediate dose of fiscal reality. Congress needs to stop playing games with numbers and start making tough decisions about spending priorities. Unfortunately, this bill will likely pass with flying colors, as our esteemed lawmakers continue to prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability.
**Prognosis:** The American people will be left holding the bag for these reckless spending habits. As the national debt continues to grow, so will the risk of economic instability and decreased prosperity for future generations. But hey, at least our politicians can claim they "did something" about the budget.
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 59 nodes and 30 connections (61 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $130,438
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 19 helped, 5 harmed.
Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1102(1) National Defense (050) shows new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2025-2034, indicating increased defense spending that benefits defense contractors.
Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1101(11) Health functional category shows increasing budget authority and outlays for Health (550) from $945B in FY25 to $1,310B in FY34, indicating growth in healthcare spending that would benefit pharmaceutical companies through increased drug purchases and Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements.
Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1102(11) Health (550) shows substantial new budget authority and outlays for health programs, which directly funds hospitals and health systems through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health expenditures.
Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1101(6) Agriculture functional category shows decreasing budget authority from $58.5B in FY25 to $32.9B in FY34, indicating reduced agricultural subsidies and support that would negatively impact agribusiness conglomerates like ADM, Cargill, and Tyson Foods.
Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1102(4) Energy (270) allocates budget authority and outlays for energy programs, which includes support for electric utilities through grid modernization and energy infrastructure investments.
Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1102(11) Health (550) allocates significant funds for health programs, which includes subsidies and payments that benefit private health insurers through programs like Medicare Advantage and ACA marketplace subsidies.
+ 18 more industries not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC])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.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"SCONRES 7 sets overall defense spending levels and includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for government deregulation, which indirectly supports DOD modernization and acquisition reform goals, but it does not explicitly address nuclear force expansion, counterterrorism burden-sharing, or specific PPBE reforms outlined in Project 2025."
— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.
AI Analysis:
"SCONRES 7 establishes overall defense spending levels but does not contain the specific Air Force-focused reforms, pass-through funding elimination, or 5% annual budget increase called for in the Project 2025 policy. The overlap is limited to general defense budgeting."
— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades. — 114 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force. l Reduce near-term and mid-term risk. Increasing the Air Force’s acquisition of next-generation capabilities that either are or soon will be in production will increase the ability of the United States to deter or defeat near-term to mid-term threats. 1. Increase F-35A procurement to 60–80 per year. 2. Build the capacity for a B-21 production rate of 15–18 aircraft per year along with applicable elements of the B-21 long-range strike family of systems. 3. Increase Air Force airlift and aerial refueling capacity to support agile combat employment operations that generate combat sorties from a highly dispersed posture in both Europe and the Pacific. 4. Develop and buy larger quantities of advanced mid-range weapons (50 nm to 200 nm) that are sized to maximize targets per sortie for stealth aircraft flying in contested environments against target sets that could exceed 100,000 aimpoints. 5. Accelerate the development and production of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile to reduce the risk inherent in an aging Minuteman III force in light of China’s nuclear modernization breakout. 6. Increase the number of EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft from 10 to 20 in order to achieve a minimum capacity to engage growing threats from China across the electromagnetic spectrum. l Invest in future Air Force programs and efforts. Increasingly capable adversaries require new capabilities to enable victory against those adversaries. 1. Attain an operationally optimized advanced battle management system as the Air Force element of the DOD Joint All Domain Command and Control enterprise. 2. Produce the next-generation air dominance system of systems (air moving target indication, other sensors, communications, command and control, weapons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles).
AI Analysis:
"The bill establishes overall federal spending levels and includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for government deregulation, which loosely touches on Project 2025's goal of reducing the Department of Education's size and cutting programs, but it does not contain any specific education‑related provisions such as consolidating the department, trimming employees, antitrust actions against accreditors, or the detailed reports outlined in the policy."
— 359 — Department of Education l The reissuing of the report on school safety from 2018 with updated information, l The release of a report to Congress on how to consolidate the department and trim nonessential employees, l A report on the negative influence of action civics on students’ understanding of history and civics and their disposition toward the United States, l An update of the Coleman report to show the impact of family structure on student achievement, l A full accounting of CARES Act education expenditures, and l A report on how many dollars make their way to the classroom in every federal education grant and program. Pursue Antitrust Against Accreditors l The President should issue an executive order pursuing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association (ABA). NEW POLICIES/REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR THE WHITE HOUSE The department must coordinate any rulemaking with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOJ, and other agencies that share responsibility with the department in the administration or enforcement of stat- ute, such as Titles VI and IX. Moreover, regarding regulations arising under civil rights laws administered by the department, Executive Order 12550 requires the Attorney General to approve final regulations; the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must approve notices of proposed rulemaking. Organizational Issues Historical Budget Information. Congressional appropriations for the U.S. Department of Education have risen from $14 billion in 1980 to $95.5 billion in 2021, an astounding increase, especially in light of the lack of improvements in student outcomes. Recommend Budget Cuts, Shifts, and Augmentations, If Any. Transferring most of the programs at the U.S. Department of Education to other agencies and eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs would yield significant taxpayer — 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.
HELP Response and Recovery Act