A resolution honoring the memories of the victims of the senseless attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/79

Last Updated: June 29, 2025

A resolution honoring the memories of the victims of the senseless attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018.

SRES. 79, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

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

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

Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S990; text: CR S981)

February 12, 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:

**Analysis of SRES 79: A Resolution Honoring the Memories of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Victims**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll cut through the sentimental noise surrounding this resolution. Let's examine its implications on the grand tapestry of power and wealth.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is a symbolic gesture, honoring the memories of the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack in 2018. It serves no tangible purpose other than to placate emotional constituents and provide a fleeting sense of unity.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** None. This resolution does not propose any changes to existing laws or regulations, rendering it inconsequential from a policy perspective.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are the families and loved ones of the victims, who will likely appreciate the sentimental gesture. However, this resolution has no material impact on my business interests or those of other influential stakeholders.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This resolution is a non-event from an economic and policy perspective. It does not address any pressing issues, nor does it create new opportunities for growth or innovation. In fact, its lack of substance underscores the inefficiencies of democratic processes, which often prioritize emotional appeals over rational decision-making.

As a thought leader in my industry, I must emphasize that true progress requires bold action, not empty gestures. If Congress wishes to honor the memories of these victims, they should focus on creating an environment conducive to innovation and growth, rather than indulging in sentimental resolutions.

In conclusion, SRES 79 is a symbolic exercise devoid of substance or impact. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll continue to advocate for policies that promote deregulation, consolidation, and the unencumbered pursuit of wealth and power – the true drivers of progress in our society.

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 civics class, a resolution is not the same as a law. It's a statement of opinion or sentiment expressed by Congress. In this case, SRES 79 is a resolution honoring the memories of the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to pay tribute to the victims and their families, as well as acknowledge the strength and resilience of the Parkland community. It's a symbolic gesture, not a legislative action that would change existing laws or policies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no key provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. As I mentioned earlier, it's simply a statement of sentiment. There are no amendments, no new regulations, and no funding allocations. It's just a feel-good measure that allows Congress to express its condolences.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders in this case are the families and loved ones of the victims, as well as the Parkland community at large. However, since this is a resolution and not a law, it doesn't actually affect any policies or procedures that would impact these groups in a tangible way.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is...well, essentially nothing. It's a symbolic gesture that might provide some emotional comfort to those affected by the tragedy, but it won't lead to any concrete changes or actions. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances in our system of government? This is an example of how Congress can pass non-binding resolutions that don't actually do anything to address a problem.

As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, real legislative action requires more than just symbolic gestures. It requires bills with teeth, bills that propose actual changes to existing laws or policies. But hey, at least this resolution shows that Congress is willing to acknowledge the tragedy and offer some empty words of condolence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today we're going to dissect the so-called "resolution" SRES 79, a bill that's supposed to honor the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. But don't be fooled – there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this resolution appears to be a heartfelt tribute to the victims and their families. However, I believe it's just a smokescreen for something more sinister. The real purpose of this bill is to further erode our Second Amendment rights under the guise of "honoring" the victims.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 of the resolution calls for the Senate to "honor the memories of the victims." Sounds innocuous, right? But what about Section 2, which "pledges continued support for their recovery"? This is where things get fishy. What kind of "support" are we talking about here? Is this a backdoor way to introduce more gun control measures or mental health surveillance programs?

And let's not forget the curious timing of this resolution. It was introduced on February 13, 2025 – just one day before the seventh anniversary of the shooting. Coincidence? I think not.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are the families and loved ones of the victims, as well as the Parkland community at large. But what about the gun lobby? The NRA? Are they being quietly targeted by this resolution?

And then there's the curious mention of "emergency medical and health care professionals" in Section 4. What role do they play in this grand scheme? Are we seeing a push for more government control over our healthcare system?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This resolution may seem like a harmless tribute, but I believe it has far-reaching implications. By honoring the victims in such a way, Congress is setting a precedent for future "tributes" that could be used to justify further erosion of our civil liberties.

Mark my words, folks – this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a Trojan horse for more gun control, surveillance, and government overreach. 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 pass a resolution – yes, a whole resolution! – honoring the memories of the victims of that senseless attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School back in 2018. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, what a bold move by our fearless leaders in Washington.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to... wait for it... honor the memories of the victims and offer condolences to their families. Wow, I bet that took a lot of courage to do. I mean, who wouldn't want to acknowledge the senseless tragedy that occurred at that high school? It's not like they're trying to score cheap points or anything.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, folks, this resolution doesn't actually change any existing laws. (Shocking, right?) It's just a feel-good measure designed to make our elected officials look good. But hey, who needs actual policy changes when you can just pay lip service to the victims and their families?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are, of course, the families and loved ones of the victims, as well as the survivors of the attack. And let's not forget the emergency medical and healthcare professionals who responded to the tragedy. (Sincere tone for a brief moment) We do appreciate their bravery and selflessness.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the real impact of this resolution?" Well, folks, it's simple: none. Zilch. Zero. It's just a symbolic gesture designed to appease the elites in Washington who think they can control our emotions with empty words. (Wink) But hey, at least they're trying to look like they care about freedom and the American people.

(Performatively outraged tone) And let me tell you, folks, this resolution is just another example of how out of touch our leaders are with the real issues facing this country. I mean, what about the deep state? What about the Second Amendment? (Sarcastic tone) Oh wait, those aren't important right now; we've got a resolution to pass!

That's all for tonight, folks. Stay vigilant, and remember: freedom isn't free! (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress. Because what the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting really needed was a bunch of self-serving politicians grandstanding on their graves.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** To pretend to care about the victims and their families while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of gun violence in America. The resolution's sole purpose is to provide a feel-good moment for lawmakers, allowing them to pat themselves on the back for "honoring" the memories of those who died.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** None. This is a non-binding resolution that doesn't actually do anything. It's a symbolic gesture, a placebo designed to make voters think their representatives are taking action when, in reality, they're just going through the motions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The families of the victims, who will likely be subjected to more empty promises and hollow condolences from politicians looking for photo ops. The Parkland community, which has already been exploited by lawmakers seeking to capitalize on their tragedy. And, of course, the gun lobby, which will continue to pull the strings behind the scenes, ensuring that no meaningful action is taken to address gun violence.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution won't change a single thing about the way guns are regulated in this country. It won't prevent future mass shootings or provide any real support to those affected by them. But hey, at least it'll give lawmakers something to tweet about.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Empty Gesture Syndrome" (EGS), a common affliction among politicians who prioritize appearances over actual action. Symptoms include grandiose language, meaningless resolutions, and a complete lack of follow-through. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the hypocrisy that comes with it.

In short, this bill is a joke. A pathetic attempt to feign concern for victims while doing nothing to address the underlying issues. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, a shallow gesture from a Congress more interested in posturing than problem-solving.

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

**SRES 79 Analysis**

This resolution, sponsored by Senator Scott of Florida and cosponsored by Mrs. Moody, is a ceremonial gesture aimed at honoring the memories of the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on February 14, 2018.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this resolution is to pay tribute to the lives lost in the tragic event and offer condolences to the affected families, loved ones, and friends. It also acknowledges the strength and resilience of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School community and expresses gratitude to emergency medical professionals.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution does not propose any changes to existing law or introduce new legislation. Instead, it is a symbolic gesture that serves as a congressional acknowledgment of the tragedy.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

1. Families and loved ones of the victims 2. Survivors of the attack 3. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School community 4. Emergency medical and healthcare professionals in Parkland, Florida

**Potential Impact & Implications:** While this resolution does not have any tangible policy implications, it may serve as a symbolic gesture to raise awareness about gun violence and school safety. However, without concrete legislative action, its impact is limited.

Notably, Senator Scott has received significant campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the past. This raises questions about his willingness to take meaningful action on gun control legislation. In 2020, Senator Scott received $9,900 from the NRA's Political Victory Fund, according to OpenSecrets.org.

It is also worth noting that this resolution does not address any of the underlying issues that contributed to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, such as lax gun laws or inadequate mental health resources. Instead, it serves as a feel-good measure that allows lawmakers to appear sympathetic without taking concrete action.

In conclusion, while SRES 79 is a well-intentioned gesture, its lack of substance and tangible impact raises questions about the sincerity of lawmakers in addressing the root causes of gun violence.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]

ID: M001244

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 2 nodes and 0 connections

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section (4) expresses gratitude to the emergency medical and health care professionals of the Parkland community for their efforts in responding to the attack and caring for the victims and survivors, implying support for healthcare providers
+Long-Term Care & Nursing Homesconfidence 0.60
Section (2) honors the survivors of the attack and pledges continued support for their recovery, which may involve long-term care services
+Law Enforcement & Surveillance Techconfidence 0.60
The resolution acknowledges the response to the attack, which involved law enforcement and surveillance efforts

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech$500
from 2 contributions
- SNIFFEN, JAMES$500
Hospitals & Health Systems$132
from 5 contributions
- DIAZ, HECTOR$132

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: 54%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 79 is a symbolic tribute to victims of a school shooting and mentions emergency medical professionals, while the Project 2025 HHS section focuses on abortion training policies, childcare funding, doula support, IHS reforms, and rural health—topics unrelated to the resolution's purpose."

Key themes:healthcare workforcecommunity supportpublic health acknowledgment

— 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 — 487 — Department of Health and Human Services overall cesarean rate by 50%, the length of labor by 25%, the use of oxytocin by 40%, and requests for an epidural by 60%. Doulas often use the power of touch and massage to reduce stress and anxiety during labor.”73 Given concerns about maternal mortality or postpartum depression that is worsened by poor birth experiences, doulas should be an active option for all women whether they are giving birth in a traditional hospital, through midwifery, or at home. Additionally, since most Doulas’ services are not covered by traditional insurance programs, the Maternal and Child Health program should work to pro- vide funding for low-income mothers. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE (IHS) The Indian Health Service serves our American Indian and Alaska Native popu- lations. Reforms are needed to improve America’s ability to deliver on its promises to these important populations and must take account of cultural preferences and lifestyles, limitations due to geography (such as challenging terrain), and limited Internet access. For example, contacting individuals within some of these com- munities and tribes during the COVID-19 pandemic proved to be difficult because many had transient addresses and unreliable cell service. During the transition to the Biden Administration, IHS abandoned tribes as their sources of COVID-19 tests and vaccine supplies disappeared. It is important to guard against such situations in order to preserve these tribes’ access to health resources during public health emergencies (PHEs). Even before the pandemic, services available to these populations through federal resources and personnel (such as vision care) were often scarce or nonexistent. Patients in these populations should be empowered to rely on alternatives to IHS through better access to private health care providers. Exploring positive reforms contained in the VA MISSION Act74 could reveal similar opportunities for increased options and access for American Indians and Alaska Natives. RURAL HEALTH A growing concern is the decreasing access to health care services for Americans living in rural, less populated areas. Many find themselves in regions that were not previously as rural as industries move away, taking with them economic prosperity and often medical providers. Others are in essential professions such as farming that by nature necessitate living in regions with fewer city accommodations and economic opportunities. Seeking space for one’s family and cultivating the land are valued goals that are deeply rooted in America’s fabric. Both Congress and an Administration must continually keep in mind how health care policies uniquely affect these regions because their market trends and populations are different from those of more populous regions. Often, rural patients face an hour’s drive to the nearest medical provider or facility or have

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 79 is a non-binding commemorative resolution honoring victims of a mass shooting, while the Project 2025 Education section deals with sex categorization, Title IX regulations, athletics data, and loan forgiveness; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

— 332 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to create and collect data on a new “nonbinary” sex category (in addition to the current “male” or “female” sex categories) and to retire data collection that indi- cates the number of (1) high school–level interscholastic athletics sports in which only male and female students participate, (2) high school–level athletics teams in which only male or female students participate, and (3) participants on high school–level interscholastic athletics sports teams in which only male or only female students participate. These poorly conceived changes are contrary to law, fail to take account of student privacy interests and statutory protections favoring parental rights under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, and jettison longstanding data collections that assist in the enforcement of Title IX. l The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority. Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations Effective July 1, 2023, the department promulgated final regulations addressing loan forgiveness under the HEA’s provisions for borrower defense to repayment (“BDR”), closed school loan discharge (“CSLD”), and public service loan forgive- ness (“PSLF”). The regulations also included prohibitions against pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers for students enrolling in institu- tions participating in Title IV student loan programs. Acting outside of statutory authority, the current Administration has drastically expanded BDR, CSLD, and PSLF loan forgiveness without clear congressional authorization at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, with estimates ranging from $85.1 to $120 billion. l The new Administration must quickly commence negotiated rulemaking and propose that the department rescind these regulations. l The next Administration should also rescind Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN 22-11 and DCL GEN 22-10 and its letters to accreditation agencies dated July 19, 2022, which are attempts to undercut Florida’s SB 7044, providing universities more flexibility on accreditation. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX) With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits — 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.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 79 is a symbolic resolution honoring victims of a school shooting, while the Project 2025 policy focuses on parental rights in education, FERPA/PPRA enforcement, gender ideology in schools, and school choice—there is no thematic or policy 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: 55%

Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill is a commemorative resolution honoring victims of a mass shooting and does not address education policy, sex categorization, athletics data collection, or Title IX reforms outlined in Project 2025."

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 54%

Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SRES 79 is a non-binding resolution honoring the victims of the Parkland shooting and does not address any Department of Education policies or Project 2025 objectives such as IDEA regulation, school meal programs, or student loan repayment reforms."

— 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

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. Scott, Rick

A bill to prohibit Big Cypress National Preserve from being designated as wilderness or as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes.

119/s/446

Myakka Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025

119/s/2270

SHARKED Act of 2025

119/s/2314

Back to All Bills