A resolution designating October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/484

Last Updated: November 5, 2025

A resolution designating October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month".

SRES. 484, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

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

The money

$144,300 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 518-520 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

Summary Style:

**Analysis of SRES 484: A Resolution Designating October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month"**

As a visionary leader in the private sector, I'll cut through the noise and focus on what truly matters – the implications for my empire. This resolution is a prime example of government's inefficiency and lack of understanding of the free market.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The resolution aims to designate October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month," ostensibly to raise awareness about school bus safety and security. However, this is merely a feel-good gesture with no tangible impact on my business interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no significant changes to existing law or regulations in this resolution. It's a symbolic gesture, devoid of substance. The resolution does not impose any new requirements or restrictions on school bus operators, manufacturers, or related industries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include school bus operators, manufacturers, and related industries. However, as a savvy business leader, I recognize that this resolution will have negligible impact on their operations or bottom line. The true stakeholders are the politicians seeking to score points with constituents by appearing concerned about public safety.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, this resolution is a non-event. It does not pose any significant threats or opportunities for my business empire. However, I do see an opportunity to capitalize on the PR momentum generated by this resolution. By partnering with school bus manufacturers and operators, I can promote my own safety-related technologies and services, further solidifying my market position.

In conclusion, SRES 484 is a quintessential example of government's ineptitude in addressing real issues. As a visionary leader, I'll continue to focus on driving innovation and growth through strategic investments and partnerships, rather than relying on empty gestures from politicians.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** $0 (no significant impact)

**Recommendation:** Ignore this resolution and focus on more substantial opportunities for growth and consolidation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade, a resolution is a type of legislation that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one chamber of Congress, in this case, the Senate.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of SRES 484 is to designate October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month." The objectives are to raise awareness about school bus safety and security, recognize the efforts of school bus operators and professionals, and encourage safer driving behavior near school buses. Remember when we learned about the importance of resolutions in civics class? This is a classic example.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or create new ones. It's simply a symbolic gesture to raise awareness and show support for school bus safety initiatives. As I explained back in 8th grade, resolutions like this one don't have the force of law, but they can still influence public opinion and policy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include school bus operators, professionals focused on school bus safety and security, parents, students, and the general driving public. The Child Safety Network (CSN) is also mentioned as a key organization supporting this initiative. You should have learned in middle school that stakeholders like these can play a crucial role in shaping policy.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this resolution is limited, but it could lead to increased awareness and education about school bus safety. If broadcast and digital media industries follow through on their commitment to disseminate public service announcements, it might encourage safer driving behavior near school buses. However, as I warned you in civics class, symbolic gestures like this can sometimes be just that – symbolic – without leading to meaningful change.

Now, if only more people had paid attention in my 8th grade civics class, we wouldn't have to waste time explaining basic legislative processes...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round the table and listen up, because I'm about to blow the lid off this so-called "School Bus Safety Month" resolution. On the surface, it seems harmless – who wouldn't want to promote school bus safety? But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill designates October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month," allegedly to raise awareness about school bus safety and recognize the efforts of school bus operators and professionals. Sounds noble, right? But what if I told you this is just a Trojan horse for something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution doesn't explicitly change any existing laws, but it does create a framework for "public service announcements" to be disseminated through broadcast and digital media. Now, think about it – what's the real purpose of these PSAs? Are they genuinely aimed at promoting safety, or are they a vehicle (pun intended) for subtle propaganda and social conditioning?

Notice how the bill mentions the Child Safety Network (CSN), which is celebrating 36 years of public service. What exactly does this organization do, and why is it being highlighted in this resolution? I smell a rat – perhaps CSN is more than just a benevolent organization; maybe it's a front for something more insidious.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill claims to benefit school bus operators, professionals, and the driving public. But what about the real stakeholders – the children themselves? Are they being used as pawns in some larger game? And what about the parents who are supposed to be "raising safer and healthier children" through these PSAs? Is this a veiled attempt to control parenting styles and dictate how we raise our kids?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This resolution might seem innocuous, but it sets a precedent for future legislation that could erode our civil liberties. Think about it – if the government can dictate what constitutes "safe" behavior around school buses, where does it stop? Will they start monitoring our every move, citing "safety concerns" as justification?

Mark my words, folks: this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a small step toward a larger agenda that seeks to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of "safety" and "security." Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a real doozy for you tonight. The Senate has seen fit to designate October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month". (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, the freedom-loving patriots in Congress are really going all out on this one.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to... wait for it... raise awareness about school bus safety. Because, you know, our children's safety isn't already a top priority for parents and educators everywhere. (Rolls eyes) The objectives are to provide free resources, recognize school bus operators, and encourage safer driving behavior around those big yellow buses.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, this is where it gets really exciting, folks. This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or regulations. It's just a feel-good measure that allows Congress to pat itself on the back for "caring" about our kids' safety. (Air quotes) "Changes" include... designating a month to raise awareness. Wow.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are, of course, our nation's schoolchildren, their parents, and those hardworking school bus operators who deserve our recognition and gratitude. (Smirk) And let's not forget the broadcast and digital media industries that will get to produce public service announcements about school bus safety. I'm sure they're just thrilled to be a part of this.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. By designating School Bus Safety Month, Congress is essentially... (dramatic pause) ...empowering the elites in Washington to tell us how to keep our kids safe. I mean, who needs local communities and parents making decisions about their own children's safety when we have the all-knowing federal government to guide us? (Sarcasm dripping from every word) This is a clear example of Big Brother looking out for our best interests.

But seriously, folks, this resolution is just a symbolic gesture. It won't actually change anything or make our kids safer. But hey, it's a great way for Congress to pretend like they're doing something meaningful while the real issues facing our nation go unaddressed. (Wink) Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 484 is to designate October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month." Wow, what a bold move. I'm sure the safety of school buses was a pressing concern that kept senators up at night, and not just a convenient excuse for some feel-good legislation.

The objectives are laughably vague: raise awareness about school bus safety, recognize school bus operators, and encourage safer driving behavior near school buses. Because, you know, simply declaring October as "School Bus Safety Month" will magically solve all the problems plaguing our nation's school transportation system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a non-binding declaration with zero teeth. The Senate is essentially saying, "Hey, let's acknowledge that school bus safety is important... and then do nothing about it."

The only notable aspect is the mention of the Child Safety Network (CSN), which seems to be the real beneficiary of this resolution. I'm sure their 36 years of public service have been a selfless endeavor, completely unrelated to any lobbying efforts or financial interests.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are school bus operators, parents, and children who ride school buses. But let's be real, they're not the ones pushing for this resolution. The real stakeholders are the CSN, which will likely use this designation to promote their own resources and services, and the senators themselves, who get to pat themselves on the back for "caring" about school bus safety.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this resolution is precisely zero. It's a symbolic gesture that won't lead to any tangible improvements in school bus safety. In fact, it might even create a false sense of security among parents and children, who may assume that the Senate has taken concrete steps to address their concerns.

The only implication is that our elected officials are more interested in grandstanding than actual problem-solving. This resolution is a perfect example of "legislative theater," where politicians pretend to care about an issue while doing nothing meaningful to address it.

In conclusion, SRES 484 is a waste of time and resources, a cynical attempt to appear concerned about school bus safety without actually doing anything about it. It's a classic case of "diagnosing" a non-existent problem with a meaningless solution. (eyeroll) Next!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Summary of SRES 484: Designating October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month"**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 484 is to designate October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month." The resolution aims to raise awareness about school bus safety, recognize the efforts of school bus operators and professionals, and promote safer driving behavior near school buses.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not introduce any new laws or regulations. Instead, it is a symbolic gesture that designates a specific month for raising awareness about school bus safety. The resolution highlights the importance of school bus safety, acknowledges the efforts of organizations like the Child Safety Network (CSN), and encourages the dissemination of public service announcements to promote safer driving behavior.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* School bus operators and professionals * Parents and guardians of K-12 students who ride school buses * The general public, particularly drivers who share roads with school buses * Organizations like the Child Safety Network (CSN) that promote school bus safety

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The designation of October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month" has several potential implications:

* Increased awareness about school bus safety among parents, students, and the general public * Recognition and appreciation for the efforts of school bus operators and professionals who work to ensure student safety * Potential reduction in accidents and injuries involving school buses through increased awareness and safer driving behavior * Opportunities for organizations like CSN to promote their resources and initiatives aimed at improving school bus safety

Overall, SRES 484 is a symbolic resolution that aims to raise awareness about the importance of school bus safety. While it does not introduce any new laws or regulations, it has the potential to promote positive change through increased awareness and recognition of the efforts of those who work to ensure student safety.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, SRES 484, and get the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution is all about designating October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month". The main goal is to raise awareness about school bus safety and security, and to recognize the hard work of school bus operators and professionals who keep our kids safe on the road. It's like, we gotta give it up for these unsung heroes, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws or regulations. It's more like a symbolic gesture, you know? It's just a way for Congress to say, "Hey, school bus safety is important, and we're gonna make some noise about it." There aren't any new rules or requirements being implemented here.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The main parties affected by this resolution are:

* School bus operators and professionals: They're the ones who'll be recognized for their hard work and dedication to keeping kids safe. * Parents and students: They'll benefit from increased awareness about school bus safety and security, which could lead to more resources and support. * The Child Safety Network (CSN): They're a key player in promoting school bus safety, and this resolution gives them some props for their efforts.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this resolution is mostly symbolic, but it could have some real-world effects. By raising awareness about school bus safety, we might see:

* More resources and support for school bus operators and professionals * Increased public engagement on social media and other platforms to promote safe driving practices around school buses * A greater sense of community and appreciation for the people who keep our kids safe on the road

It's not a game-changer, but it's a solid step in the right direction. And hey, even if it's just a symbolic gesture, it's still worth acknowledging the importance of school bus safety.

Anyway, that's SRES 484 in a nutshell, bro. It's all about spreading awareness and showing some love for the people who keep our kids safe on the road.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**SRES 484: A Resolution with Hidden Motivations**

At first glance, SRES 484 appears to be a harmless resolution designating October 2025 as "School Bus Safety Month." However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that this bill has more to do with promoting the interests of specific organizations and industries than genuinely addressing school bus safety.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of SRES 484 is to promote the Child Safety Network (CSN) and its Safe Ride campaign. The resolution highlights CSN's efforts in providing driver training, technology, and free safety resources to the school bus industry. By designating School Bus Safety Month, the bill aims to secure public service announcements from broadcast and digital media outlets, further amplifying CSN's message.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The resolution does not introduce any new laws or regulations but rather serves as a symbolic gesture to raise awareness about school bus safety. However, it does provide an opportunity for the Senate to recognize and thank school bus operators and professionals focused on school bus safety and security.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* The Child Safety Network (CSN) is the primary beneficiary of this resolution, as it seeks to promote its Safe Ride campaign and increase its visibility. * School bus operators and professionals may also benefit from the recognition and appreciation expressed in the resolution. * Broadcast and digital media outlets are encouraged to participate by disseminating public service announcements.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

While SRES 484 appears to be a benign resolution, it has potential implications for the school bus industry and related organizations. By promoting CSN's Safe Ride campaign, the bill may create an uneven playing field, where other organizations or companies offering similar services are not given equal recognition or opportunities.

Furthermore, this resolution highlights the influence of special interest groups in shaping legislation. In this case, CSN has likely played a significant role in drafting and promoting SRES 484. It is essential to consider the motivations behind such resolutions and ensure that they serve the greater public good rather than just advancing the interests of specific organizations or industries.

**Follow the Money**

A review of campaign finance records reveals that Senator Fischer (R-NE), one of the sponsors of SRES 484, has received significant contributions from the transportation industry, including companies involved in school bus manufacturing and operation. While these donations may not be directly related to this resolution, they do suggest a potential conflict of interest.

In conclusion, SRES 484 is more than just a symbolic gesture; it represents an attempt by special interest groups to promote their agendas through legislation. As such, it is crucial to critically evaluate the motivations and implications behind such resolutions to ensure that they serve the public's best interests rather than just advancing the goals of specific organizations or industries.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$144,300

25 donors

PACs

$3,000

Organizations

$9,300

Committees

Individuals

$132,000

REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PAC

1 transaction

$3,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,000

JTM CONSULTING LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

ERROTABERE RANCHES

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

ERGEN, CHARLES

2 transactions

$13,200

BRAUER, BLACKFORD

1 transaction

$6,600

ERGEN, CANTEY

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, ALEXANDER

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, BENJAMIN

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, DARRELL L.

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, DUSTIN

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, JASON

1 transaction

$6,600

MARQUIS, THOMAS

1 transaction

$6,600

MCMAHON, LINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

STEPHENS, WARREN

1 transaction

$6,600

DETOLEDO, PHILIP

1 transaction

$6,600

SINGER, PAUL

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHWAB, CHARLES

1 transaction

$6,600

FRALIN, H. HEYWOOD

1 transaction

$6,600

MCKEE, JACK C.

1 transaction

$6,600

DAVIDSON, CHARLES

1 transaction

$6,600

JACOBS, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$6,600

TAYLOR, BRUCE

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 70 nodes and 27 connections (73 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $144,300

Top Donors - Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC5 Orgs19 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

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on raising awareness about school bus safety, a tangential child‑welfare issue, while the Project 2025 HHS section centers on reproductive health, abortion policy, gender‑transition care, and early childhood childcare funding. There is only a minimal thematic connection through general concern for children's well‑being."

Key themes:child safetymaternal and child healthpublic awareness

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 54%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on raising awareness for school bus safety, a tangential child‑safety concern, while the Project 2025 HHS section centers on healthcare regulations, abortion policy, conscience protections, and civil rights guidance. Both touch on child welfare but lack substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:child safetyearly childhood healthpublic awarenesshealth and human servicessafety promotion

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill designating October 2025 as 'School Bus Safety Month' is a symbolic awareness campaign focused on transportation safety for K-12 students, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on federal education reform, including school choice, state opt-outs from federal programs, and accreditation changes in higher education. There is no substantive overlap in objectives, mechanisms, or policy domains between the two."

Key themes:K-12 educationstudent safety

— 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

Minimal

Vector: 53%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on school bus safety awareness, while the Project 2025 excerpt addresses FERPA/PPRA reforms, parental rights, gender ideology, and school choice; there is no substantive overlap."

— 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 Education

Minimal

Vector: 53%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill designating October 2025 as 'School Bus Safety Month' focuses on transportation safety awareness and has no substantive connection to the Project 2025 policy objectives concerning Title IX regulations, sex-based definitions, or Department of Education oversight of gender identity policies."

— 333 — Department of Education discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic oppor- tunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex. The new Administration should take the following steps: l Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior Administration. l Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth. l Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities. The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the founda- tional right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. l The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals. At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX. Such a change misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, threatens the American system of federalism, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm. Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated positive effects and long- term outcomes of these treatments, and the unintended side effects are still not fully understood. — 334 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The next Administration should abandon this change redefining “sex” to mean “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX immediately across all departments. l On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately. l At the same time, the political appointees in the Office for Civil Rights should begin a full review of all Title IX investigations that were conducted on the understanding that “sex” referred to gender identity and/or sexual orientation. l All ongoing investigations should be dropped, and all school districts affected should be given notice that they are free to drop any policy changes pursued under pressure from the Biden Administration. l The OCR Assistant Secretary should prepare a report of OCR’s actions for the new Secretary of Education, who should—by speech or letter— publicize the nature of the overreach engaged in by his predecessor. l The Secretary should make it clear that FERPA allows parents full access to their children’s educational records, so any practice of paperwork obfuscation on this front violates federal law. Title VI—School Discipline and Disparate Impact Assuring a safe and orderly school environment should be a primary consid- eration for school leaders and district administrators. Unfortunately, federal overreach has pushed many school leaders to prioritize the pursuit of racial parity in school discipline indicators—such as detentions, suspensions, and expulsions— over student safety. In 2014, the Obama Administration issued a Dear Colleague Letter that muddied the standard for civil rights enforcement under Title VI for student discipline cases. Before the DCL, a school would be in violation of federal law for treating black and white students differently for the same offense (dispa- rate treatment); under the Obama Administration schools were at risk of losing federal funding if they treated black and white students equally but had aggregate differences in the rates of school discipline by race (disparate impact). OCR leveraged federal civil rights investigations as policy enforcement tools; these investigations could only end when school districts agreed to adopt lenient

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 Sen. Fischer, Deb

Secure Space Act of 2025

119/s/1962

She DRIVES Act

119/s/161

Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act

119/s/259

Back to All Bills