Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship Opportunity Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2034
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

ID: B001315

Follow the money

The bill

Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship Opportunity Act

HR. 2034, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

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

The money

$71,300 raised

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

The alignment

60% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 353-355 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

September 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

The Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship Opportunity Act (HR 2034) is a perfect example of a "feel-good" bill designed to make politicians look like they care about education and veterans. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

**New regulations being created or modified:** The bill amends the requirements for the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship, which provides educational assistance to eligible veterans. Specifically, it changes the eligibility criteria, reduces the number of months required for certain programs, and adds new priorities for awarding scholarships.

**Affected industries and sectors:** The obvious winners here are the education sector (particularly institutions with STEM programs) and the defense industry (which will benefit from a more educated workforce). But let's not forget the real beneficiaries: politicians who get to tout their "support" for veterans and education.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Ah, the fun part. The bill doesn't explicitly state any new compliance requirements or timelines, but we can be sure that institutions and individuals will need to navigate a complex web of bureaucratic red tape to access these scholarships. After all, what's a government program without a healthy dose of paperwork and administrative overhead?

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Don't worry, there are no teeth in this bill. No penalties for non-compliance, no enforcement mechanisms to speak of. It's all just a big game of "trust us" with your tax dollars.

**Economic and operational impacts:** The economic impact will be minimal, as the scholarships are already funded through existing programs. However, the operational impact will be significant, as institutions and individuals will need to adapt to the new eligibility criteria and priorities. But hey, who needs efficiency when you can have more bureaucracy?

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of "legislative lip service." It's a shallow attempt to appear supportive of veterans and education while doing nothing to address the real issues facing our country. The politicians behind this bill are either incompetent or cynical (or both), and the voters who elect them are complicit in their own deception.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an inability to tell the truth, a penchant for self-aggrandizement, and a complete disregard for the well-being of constituents. Treatment: None available. Prognosis: Grim.

Related Topics

Education & Student AidMilitary & Veterans AffairsFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$71,300
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$5,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$3,300
2
LABORERS LOCAL 397 PAC
2 transactions
$1,000
3
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 553
2 transactions
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
MCNALLY, R. STEPHEN
2 transactions
$6,600
2
MORINO, MARIO M.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
FISHER, CYNTHIA
1 transaction
$3,300
4
MURPHY, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
5
NELSON, REED C.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
NI, PIN
1 transaction
$3,300
7
PRICE, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,300
8
GOTTLIEB, HOWARD L.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
STEYER, TOM
1 transaction
$3,300
10
TRONE, DAVID J.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
WALTON, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BEIDLER, PRUDENCE
1 transaction
$3,300
13
BENNETT, RAYMOND
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CHAVKIN, ARNIE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
CLIFFORD, ROBERT A.
1 transaction
$3,300
16
CONWAY, KEVIN
1 transaction
$3,300
17
COONEY, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
18
DUNN, PAUL
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham [R-AZ-8]

ID: H001098

Top Contributors

10

1
CLB PARTNERS
OrganizationGILBERT, AZ
$12,000
Jan 28, 2024
2
ADVANTAGE INSURANCE PLLC
OrganizationPHOENIX, AZ
$3,300
May 7, 2024
3
JARDIN RATZKEN PLLC
OrganizationTEMPE, AZ
$1,000
Feb 26, 2024
4
JARDIN RATZKEN PLLC
OrganizationTEMPE, AZ
$1,000
Mar 26, 2024
5
HAMADEH, WASEEM J
HOH INVESTMENT GROUPMANAGING MEMBER
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$13,200
Dec 29, 2023
6
MANLEY, DWIGHT
SELF-EMPLOYEDINVESTMENTS
IndividualBREA, CA
$13,200
Dec 13, 2023
7
HAYDEN, STEPHEN
ENTREPRENEURENTREPRENEUR
IndividualELLENSBURG, WA
$13,200
Mar 14, 2024
8
PRICE, KAPU
PATRIOT DISPOSALSELF-EMPLOYED
IndividualPRESCOTT, AZ
$13,200
Feb 29, 2024
9
HAYDEN, STEPHEN
ENTREPRENEURENTREPRENEUR
IndividualELLENSBURG, WA
$13,200
Mar 14, 2024
10
NOWOCIEN, PIOTR
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualPINECREST, FL
$9,900
Mar 16, 2024

Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3]

ID: V000135

Top Contributors

10

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 9, 2024
2
HO CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
3
FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
OrganizationCRANDON, WI
$3,300
Sep 17, 2024
4
AIPAC PAC CONDUIT ACCOUNT
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Oct 23, 2024
5
ALLIANCE OF BANKERS FOR WISCONSIN
OrganizationMADISON, WI
$250
Apr 23, 2024
6
ANDERSON, JOHN R. MR.
ANDERSON ENTERPRISES LLCOWNER
IndividualROCKFORD, IL
$10,000
Dec 19, 2023
7
BROIN, JEFF
POET LLCCEO
IndividualSIOUX FALLS, SD
$6,600
Aug 24, 2023
8
UIHLEIN, RICHARD E. MR.
ULINE INC.CEO
IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2023
9
LEVY, EDWARD C.
EDW. C. LEVY CO.CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
10
LEVY, EDWARD C.
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
May 6, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 55 nodes and 32 connections (61 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $97,500

Top Donors - Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

  • Section 2 modifies the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship requirements, potentially reducing demand for for-profit education services by increasing accessibility to alternative educational assistance programs, as seen in subsection (b) and (c)(1).

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate60.3%
Pages: 353-355

— 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

Introduction

Moderate60.3%
Pages: 353-355

— 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

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills