A resolution supporting after-school programs and Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of after-school programs held on October 23, 2025.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/528

Last Updated: December 5, 2025

A resolution supporting after-school programs and Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of after-school programs held on October 23, 2025.

SRES. 528, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

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

The money

$74,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 377-379 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8487; text: CR S8486-8487)

December 2, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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:

**SRES 528: A Resolution Supporting After-School Programs - A Strategic Analysis**

As a visionary entrepreneur and investor, I'll dissect the implications of SRES 528 on my empire's interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is a symbolic gesture supporting after-school programs and Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration. It aims to raise awareness about the importance of these programs for children, families, and communities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** None. This resolution does not introduce any new legislation or amend existing laws. It's a feel-good declaration with no tangible impact on policy or regulations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* **Education sector:** After-school program providers, schools, and community organizations may benefit from increased visibility and potential funding opportunities. * **Families and communities:** Working parents and families might appreciate the acknowledgment of after-school programs' value in supporting their children's development. * **PACs and industry groups:** The National Education Association (NEA) and other education-focused PACs might view this resolution as a positive step, but it's unlikely to significantly impact their lobbying efforts.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

From my perspective, SRES 528 is a non-event. It doesn't affect the regulatory landscape or create new opportunities for consolidation and growth in the education sector. The resolution's focus on after-school programs might lead to increased funding or support, but this would be a minor, incremental development.

The real story here is the alignment of interests among the bill's sponsors. Senators Smith, Collins, Warren, and Kaine are likely seeking to curry favor with educators, families, and community organizations. This resolution can be seen as "smart capital allocation" for their re-election campaigns, as it demonstrates their commitment to education and family-friendly policies.

In conclusion, SRES 528 is a symbolic gesture that doesn't move the needle on policy or regulations. As a strategic investor, I'll continue to monitor the education sector for more substantial developments that can be leveraged to expand my influence and wealth.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$74,500

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$21,700

Committees

Individuals

$52,800

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$6,600

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

3 transactions

$5,300

MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,300

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$2,000

FOND DU LAC BAND

1 transaction

$1,000

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

1 transaction

$1,000

LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$500

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

HUSS, ALVIN JR

2 transactions

$6,600

HUSS, RUTH

2 transactions

$6,600

BLUE, ALLEN

2 transactions

$6,600

BROWN, TEAL

1 transaction

$3,300

BURNETT, JASON

1 transaction

$3,300

GABBERT, MARTHA W.

1 transaction

$3,300

JACKSON, KATHERINE

1 transaction

$3,300

VITALE, ANGELO

1 transaction

$3,300

ABDEY, JULIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

ARREDONDO, CANISE

1 transaction

$3,300

ATIQULLAH, NAFIS

1 transaction

$3,300

BERGH, KJELL

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWN, ANDY

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 56 nodes and 30 connections (74 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $74,500

Top Donors - Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs13 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 Education

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 528 focuses on expressing support for after-school programs, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on parental rights, FERPA/PPRA reforms, gender ideology policies, and school choice. The two share only a broad education context but lack substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:educationfamily engagement

— 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 Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 353-355AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports after-school programs through symbolic recognition, while Project 2025 advocates for eliminating federal education bureaucracy and block-granting funds to states; there is minimal direct alignment as the bill does not address federal overreach or state/local control of education funding."

Key themes:education fundingafter-school programsstate/local control

— 320 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The future of education freedom and reform in the states is bright and will shine brighter when regulations and red tape from Washington are eliminated. Federal money is inevitably accompanied by rules and regulations that keep the influx of funds from having much, if any, impact on student outcomes. It raises the cost of education without raising student achievement. To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block- granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats. Eventually, policymaking and funding should take place at the state and local level, closest to the affected families. Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity. That has not, however, been the track record of federal higher education policy or of the many institutions of higher education that are hostile to free expression, open academic inquiry, and American exceptionalism. Federal post- secondary policy should be more than massive, inefficient, and open-ended subsidies to “traditional” colleges and universities. It should be rebalanced to focus far more on bolstering the workforce skills of Americans who have no interest in pursuing a four- year academic degree. It should reflect a fuller picture of learning after high school, placing apprenticeship programs of all types and career and technical education on an even playing field with degrees from colleges and universities. Rather than continuing to buttress a higher education establishment captured by woke “diversicrats” and a de facto monopoly enforced by the federal accreditation cartel, federal postsecondary education policy should prepare students for jobs in the dynamic economy, nurture institutional diversity, and expose schools to greater market forces.1 OVERVIEW For most of our history, the federal government played a minor role in education. Then, over a 14-month period beginning in 1964, Congress planted the seeds for what would become the U.S. Department of Education (ED or the department). In July of that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after Congress reached a consensus that the mistreatment of black Americans was no longer tolerable and merited a federal response. In the case of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)2 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA),3 Congress sought to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students by providing additional compensatory funding for low-income children and lower-income college students. Spending on ESEA and the HEA—part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty”—grew exponentially in the years that followed. By Fiscal Year 2022, ESEA programs received $27.7 billion in appropriations, in addition to $190 billion that came — 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 353-355AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt discuss education and after‑school programs, but the bill expresses support for federal involvement while Project 2025 advocates reducing federal control and devolving authority to states, resulting only tangential alignment."

Key themes:educationafter-school programsfederal funding

— 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 353-355AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports after-school programs through symbolic recognition, while Project 2025's Department of Education section advocates for eliminating federal education regulations and block-granting funds to states; both touch on education improvement but diverge sharply on federal vs. state/local control and the role of federal funding."

Key themes:education improvementafter-school programsfederal role in educationstate/local controlfunding mechanisms

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 356-358AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 528 supports after-school programs as a symbolic resolution, while Project 2025 critiques federal overreach in education and advocates reducing the Department of Education's role; the bill does not address federal intervention, executive overreach, or systemic reform, resulting in only weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:educationstudent achievementfederal 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

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. Smith, Tina

A bill to amend the Act of June 22, 1948.

119/s/638

Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Amendments Act of 2025

119/s/622

A bill to accept the request to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota at the request of that Community, and for other purposes.

119/s/621

A resolution supporting after-school programs and Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of after-school programs held on October 23, 2025.