Sponsored by
Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
ID: V000128
Follow the money
The bill
SRES. 531, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 368-370 of the Mandate for Leadership.
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 S8517; text: CR S8515-8516)
December 3, 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 meaningless resolution from our esteemed leaders, designed to make them look good while accomplishing nothing. Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** SRES 531 is a feel-good resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Its primary objective is to pat itself on the back for being supportive of people with disabilities, without actually doing anything meaningful.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** None. This resolution doesn't change or amend any existing laws. It's a symbolic gesture, devoid of substance. The sponsors are simply reiterating their support for IDEA, which is already a well-established law.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** People with disabilities, educators, families, and advocates might feel warm and fuzzy about this resolution, but it doesn't provide any tangible benefits or improvements to their lives. The real stakeholders here are the politicians who get to grandstand on this issue without lifting a finger.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. This resolution won't lead to any changes in policy, funding, or services for people with disabilities. It's a PR stunt, plain and simple. If you're expecting actual progress or meaningful reform, keep dreaming.
Now, let's take a look at the sponsors of this resolution. I notice that Senator Van Hollen (D-MD) is leading the charge. Ah, yes, his top contributors include the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). How convenient. It seems these unions have "donated" their way into influencing education policy.
Meanwhile, other sponsors like Senators Cassidy (R-LA), Hirono (D-HI), and Reed (D-RI) are also on board. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they've received significant campaign contributions from disability advocacy groups and education unions.
In conclusion, SRES 531 is a hollow resolution designed to appease special interest groups and boost politicians' reputations. It's a prime example of legislative theater, where our elected officials pretend to care about important issues while doing nothing substantial to address them.
Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 39 nodes and 22 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $71,400
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.
The bill celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has transformed the educational landscape for millions of students, potentially reducing demand for private special education services (Section: Whereas IDEA established the right of every child with a disability to a free appropriate public education).
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"SRES 531 celebrates IDEA and reaffirms support for students with disabilities, while the Project 2025 policy seeks to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation over concerns about racial disproportionality in special education identification. Though both address IDEA, they take opposing stances on federal oversight regarding race and equity, resulting in only weak thematic alignment."
— 336 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on civil rights, the next conservative Administration should take sweeping action to assure that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not inverted through a disparate impact standard to provide a pretext for theoretically endless federal meddling. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA) l Effective January 18, 2017, the department issued final regulations under Part B of IDEA that require states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities. The new Administration should rescind this regulation. Students should never be denied access to special education services because of their race or ethnicity, but this is happening in school districts across the country thanks to the Obama Administration’s Equity in IDEA regulation. This was not the intent of the regulation, but it is an inevitable byproduct of its flawed assumptions. The Obama Administration looked at the racial statistics on special education assignment and made two assumptions: that African American students were dis- proportionately overrepresented, and that this overrepresentation constituted a harm that required federal pressure to ameliorate. School districts deemed to overrepresent minority students in special education assignment, or in discipline amongst special education students, are tagged by their state education agencies as engaging in “significant disproportionality,” and are required to reallocate 15 percent of their IDEA Part B money into coordinated early intervening services that are intended to address the “root causes of dispro- portionality.” In practice, this can mean raiding special education funding to pay for CRT-inspired “equity” consultants and professional development. This is especially problematic given that both of the assumptions behind Equity in IDEA are flawed. Special education services provide extra assistance to students; they do not harm them. And according to the most rigorous research on the subject, conducted by Penn State’s Paul Morgan, black students are actually underrep- resented in special education once adequate statistical controls are made. That means that this regulation effectively further depresses the provision of valuable services to an already underserved group. l The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required. l The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should prepare a digest of the best research on this subject and share — 337 — Department of Education it directly with state superintendents and state special education leaders across the country, who have been led by this regulation to believe a false problem diagnosis. Every effort should be made to dissuade states from continuing to operate on the assumption that overrepresentation requires state intervention after the federal pressure is rescinded. Provide School Meals to Children in Need; Do Not Use Federal Meals to Support Radical Ideology In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tried to advance a radical political agenda using the federal school meal program. Nearly a century ago, federal lawmakers adopted the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) and other services that provide meals for K–12 students to give children from low-income families access to food while at school. Since the 1940s, federal lawmakers have greatly expanded these meal programs, creating an entitlement for nearly all students, regardless of family income levels, and have turned the meal programs into some of the most wasteful federal pro- grams in Washington. Now, the USDA is threatening to withhold federal taxpayer spending for these meals from schools that do not implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 so that the term “sex” is replaced with “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). l The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services from federal or state agencies—including but not limited to K–12 schools—that choose not to replace “sex” with “SOGI” in that agency’s administration of Title IX. The Administration will have significant support for this policy change among state officials and Members of Congress. Twenty-two state attorneys general filed a lawsuit after the USDA’s announcement that the agency intended to withhold spending from schools that do not replace sex with SOGI. Members of Congress also introduced legislation in 2022 that would prohibit the agency from carrying out its intentions regarding Title IX. Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students. l The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement
AI Analysis:
"SRES 531 focuses on celebrating the IDEA anniversary and does not address the Project 2025 priorities of FERPA/PPRA reform, parental rights legislation, gender ideology restrictions, or school choice; the only overlap is a general education policy theme."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"SRES 531 is a symbolic resolution celebrating IDEA's anniversary and reaffirming support for special education, but it does not enact or endorse Project 2025's specific proposals such as shifting IDEA to HHS, providing $1,800 per child, micro-education savings accounts, or school choice measures."
— 350 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise would give the families of children with special needs approximately $1,800 per child to help meet a child’s unique learning needs. l Members of Congress and the White House should consider a similar update to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I is the largest portion of federal taxpayer spending under this federal education law, and the section provides additional taxpayer resources to schools or groups of schools in lower income areas. Federal taxpayers committed $16.3 billion to Title I in FY 2019, spending that is dedicated to students in low-income areas of the U.S. Per student, this spending amounts to more than $1,400 for a child in a large city and approximately $1,300 for a student in a remote, rural area.19 Research finds, though, that this enormous investment has not produced positive results for children in need. The achievement gap between children from the highest and lowest income deciles has not improved over the past 50 years. And recent, dismal outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed declines for all students, with math scores registering declines for the first time in history. l Initially, the responsibilities for administering and overseeing Title I should be moved to HHS, along with IDEA. l Students attending schools that receive Title I spending should also have access to micro-education savings accounts that allow families to choose how and where their children learn according to their needs. l Parents should be allowed to use their child’s Title I resources to help pay for private learning options including tutoring services and curricular materials. l Over a 10-year period, the federal spending should be phased out and states should assume decision-making control over how to provide a quality education to children from low-income families. Additional School Choice Options House Republicans included school choice in their “Commitment to America” agenda. l Though actions by state lawmakers are essential and any federal policies should be strictly designed so they do not conflict with state activities, Congress could consider school choice legislation such — 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
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 bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3570 Olney Laytonsville Road in Olney, Maryland, as the "Edward L. Ramsey Olney Post Office Building".
119/s/3270
Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2025
119/s/791
Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act
119/s/2369