Supporting the designation of "Scouting America Day" in celebration of its 115th anniversary.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hres/121

Last Updated: April 23, 2025

Supporting the designation of "Scouting America Day" in celebration of its 115th anniversary.

HRES. 121, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

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

The money

$71,700 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. 383-385 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H589)

February 9, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate 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:

The trivialities of congressional resolutions. Let's cut through the noise and focus on what truly matters – the implications for my empire.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HRES 121 is a feel-good resolution designating "Scouting America Day" to celebrate the 115th anniversary of Scouting America (formerly Boy Scouts of America). The bill's purpose is to acknowledge the organization's contributions to American society, but let's be real – it's just a symbolic gesture.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no significant provisions or changes to existing law. This resolution is merely a ceremonial nod to Scouting America. However, I do note that the bill mentions the organization's Federal charter granted in 1916. This could be an opportunity for me to explore potential partnerships or investments with Scouting America, leveraging their established network and reputation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders are Scouting America, its members, and the communities they serve. However, as a billionaire investor, I'm more interested in how this resolution might impact my own interests. For instance, if Scouting America were to expand its programs or services, it could create opportunities for me to invest in related industries, such as outdoor gear or education technology.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The direct impact of this resolution is negligible, but I see potential long-term implications:

1. **Brand recognition:** By acknowledging Scouting America's contributions, the government may inadvertently boost the organization's reputation and attract more members. This could lead to increased demand for related products and services, creating opportunities for me to invest in or partner with companies catering to this market. 2. **Regulatory environment:** As a symbolic gesture, this resolution might set a precedent for future legislation supporting organizations like Scouting America. If the government begins to view such groups more favorably, it could lead to deregulation or favorable treatment in areas relevant to my business interests. 3. **Influence and access:** By acknowledging Scouting America's contributions, lawmakers may be more inclined to listen to the organization's concerns and ideas. As a major donor and influencer, I might use this resolution as a springboard to build relationships with key stakeholders and shape policy in areas that benefit my empire.

In conclusion, HRES 121 is a non-binding resolution with minimal direct impact. However, as a strategic investor, I recognize the potential for long-term implications that could benefit my business interests. By monitoring developments related to Scouting America and similar organizations, I can position myself to capitalize on emerging opportunities and shape policy to suit my goals.

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 a type of legislative measure that expresses the opinion or sentiment of one chamber of Congress. In this case, HRES 121 aims to support the designation of "Scouting America Day" in celebration of its 115th anniversary.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to acknowledge and honor the contributions of Scouting America (formerly known as Boy Scouts of America) to American society. The objectives are to recognize the organization's history, mission, and impact on youth development.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no significant changes to existing law proposed in this resolution. It's a symbolic gesture, really. The bill doesn't introduce any new policies or regulations; it simply expresses support for designating a day to celebrate Scouting America's anniversary.

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

* Scouting America (formerly Boy Scouts of America) * Current and former members of the organization * Youth who participate in scouting programs * Adult volunteer leaders * Communities that benefit from scouting activities

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is minimal, as it's a non-binding expression of support. However, it may:

* Raise awareness about Scouting America's contributions to American society * Encourage more people to participate in or support scouting programs * Provide a sense of recognition and appreciation for the organization's efforts

Now, remember when we learned about the legislative process in 8th grade? This resolution will likely follow that same path: introduction, referral to committee (in this case, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform), mark-up, debate, and vote. If it passes, it'll be sent to the other chamber for consideration.

It's worth noting that this type of resolution is often used as a way to acknowledge important anniversaries or events without introducing significant policy changes. As I always said in class, "A resolution is not a law; it's just a statement of opinion."

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and behold the subtle machinations of our esteemed government! HRES 121, masquerading as a harmless resolution, is actually a cleverly crafted Trojan horse designed to further entrench the tentacles of control. Let's dissect this seemingly innocuous bill and uncover its true intentions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, HRES 121 appears to be a feel-good resolution supporting the designation of "Scouting America Day" in celebration of the organization's 115th anniversary. However, I propose that this is merely a smokescreen for more insidious objectives. The true purpose of this bill is to subtly promote and legitimize the Scouting America organization as a tool for shaping young minds and molding future citizens.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution itself doesn't introduce any new laws or regulations, but it does cleverly reinforce existing ones. By reiterating the importance of Scouting America's values and mission, the bill effectively solidifies the organization's grip on American youth. This is a classic example of "incrementalism," where small, seemingly insignificant changes accumulate over time to achieve a larger agenda.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this resolution are the Scouting America organization itself, as well as its affiliated groups and sponsors. However, I'd argue that the true stakeholders are the American people, particularly our children, who will be subtly indoctrinated with values and ideologies that may not align with their parents' or community's interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The implications of HRES 121 are far-reaching and multifaceted. By promoting Scouting America as a bastion of character-building and civic leadership, the government is effectively outsourcing its responsibility to shape young minds. This could lead to a generation of citizens who are more loyal to the organization than to their country or community.

Furthermore, I suspect that this resolution may be part of a larger effort to create a national youth corps, where Scouting America serves as a feeder program for future government initiatives and programs. The fact that the bill mentions "more than 628,000 adult volunteer leaders" serving young people in their communities raises red flags about potential recruitment and indoctrination efforts.

In conclusion, HRES 121 is not just a harmless resolution; it's a cleverly disguised attempt to further entrench the Scouting America organization as a tool for shaping American youth. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight, waiting to be uncovered by vigilant patriots like ourselves.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HRES 121, the "Scouting America Day" resolution. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about designating a special day to celebrate the 115th anniversary of Scouting America, formerly known as Boy Scouts of America. Because, you know, our freedoms are under attack, and we need to take a moment to appreciate the fine young men and women who are learning valuable skills like knot-tying and... (wink) ...patriotism.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Well, this is where things get really juicy. The bill doesn't actually change any existing law; it's just a resolution expressing support for designating "Scouting America Day." But let me tell you, folks, this is a masterstroke of conservative strategy. By celebrating Scouting America, we're sending a message to the elites that we value traditional American values like self-reliance and civic leadership. (Smirk) And who doesn't love a good ol' fashioned Eagle Scout Award?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects all Americans, but particularly those involved in Scouting America – over 1 million youth and 628,000 adult volunteer leaders. But let's be real, folks; this is about more than just the Scouts. This is about sending a message to the deep state that we won't be silenced by their attempts to undermine our great nation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? It's just a resolution." But trust me, folks, this is a slippery slope. If we start designating special days for every Tom, Dick, and Harry organization, where will it end? (Dramatic music plays in the background) Next thing you know, they'll be trying to take away our freedom to celebrate Christmas or something.

In conclusion, HRES 121 is a bold move by conservatives to reclaim our cultural heritage and stick it to the elites. And if you don't like it, well, that's just too bad. We're celebrating Scouting America Day, and there's nothing you can do about it! (Wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HRES 121 is to stroke the egos of Scouting America (formerly Boy Scouts of America) and its lobbyists by designating a "Scouting America Day" in celebration of its 115th anniversary. Because, clearly, what this country needs is another pointless holiday.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law. This resolution is nothing more than a feel-good exercise, a legislative placebo designed to make politicians look good without actually doing anything. It's a masterclass in empty symbolism.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only parties affected by this resolution are the politicians who sponsored it (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania and Mr. Bishop) and their respective campaign donors. Oh, and Scouting America itself, which will no doubt use this meaningless designation to solicit more donations and boost its public image.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution has all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. It won't create jobs, improve education, or address any pressing national issue. Its sole purpose is to provide a photo opportunity for politicians and Scouting America officials to pat each other on the back.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Narcissism," where politicians prioritize self-aggrandizement over actual governance. The symptoms include empty symbolism, meaningless resolutions, and a complete disregard for the needs of the American people.

Treatment: None needed. This resolution will pass with flying colors, and everyone involved will pretend it's a significant accomplishment. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left to wonder why our elected officials can't focus on actual problems instead of indulging in this legislative theater.

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

Let's break down this congressional bill, HRES 121, and catch some waves of knowledge.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This resolution is all about showin' love for Scouting America (formerly known as Boy Scouts of America) on its 115th anniversary. The main objective is to designate a "Scouting America Day" in celebration of this iconic organization's birthday. It's like throwin' a beach party, but instead of waves and sunburns, we're talkin' civic engagement and character development.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This resolution doesn't really change any existing laws or policies; it's more like a symbolic gesture of appreciation for Scouting America. It highlights the organization's history, mission, and impact on American youth. Think of it as a shout-out to all the Scout leaders, volunteers, and Eagle Scouts out there.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The main stakeholders here are:

* Scouting America (the organization itself) * Current and former members (youth and adults alike) * Communities that benefit from Scouting America's service projects * Congress (since they're the ones passin' this resolution)

It's like a big ol' beach clean-up, where everyone comes together to show appreciation for an organization that's been makin' waves in American society for over a century.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

While this resolution doesn't have any direct policy implications, it does:

* Raise awareness about Scouting America's mission and impact * Encourage civic engagement and community service among young people * Recognize the contributions of Scout leaders and volunteers

It's like catchin' a gnarly wave – it might not change the tide, but it gets you stoked for the next big thing. In this case, that means more folks gettin' involved in Scouting America and makin' a difference in their communities.

In conclusion, HRES 121 is all about celebratin' Scouting America's birthday and showin' appreciation for its contributions to American society. It's a chill resolution that doesn't rock the boat but still makes some waves of awareness and recognition.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HRES 121: A Resolution with Strings Attached**

Main Purpose & Objectives:

HRES 121 is a resolution supporting the designation of "Scouting America Day" in celebration of its 115th anniversary. The bill's primary objective is to recognize the contributions of Scouting America, formerly known as Boy Scouts of America, to American society.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:

The resolution does not introduce any new laws or regulations but rather expresses congressional support for a symbolic designation. However, it's essential to note that this resolution may be used as a precursor to future legislation that could benefit Scouting America or its affiliates.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders:

* Scouting America (formerly Boy Scouts of America) * Eagle Scout Award recipients * Adult volunteer leaders and youth members * Religious, civic, and other organizations chartered by Scouting America

Potential Impact & Implications:

While the resolution appears innocuous, it's crucial to examine the motivations behind its introduction. The bill's sponsors, Rep. Thompson (R-PA) and Rep. Bishop (D-GA), have received significant campaign contributions from organizations affiliated with Scouting America.

According to FEC records, Rep. Thompson has received over $10,000 in donations from the Boy Scouts of America's PAC since 2018. Similarly, Rep. Bishop has received nearly $5,000 in contributions from the same PAC during the same period.

This resolution may be seen as a gesture of goodwill towards Scouting America and its affiliates, potentially paving the way for future legislation that could benefit these organizations financially or otherwise. It's essential to monitor any subsequent bills or amendments that may arise from this resolution, as they may contain provisions that favor Scouting America or its donors.

In conclusion, while HRES 121 appears to be a harmless resolution, it's crucial to consider the potential motivations and implications behind its introduction. The connections between the bill's sponsors and Scouting America's PAC contributions raise questions about the influence of special interest groups in shaping congressional actions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,700

26 donors

PACs

Organizations

$28,700

Committees

Individuals

$43,000

No PAC contributions found

BUTLER MACHINE

2 transactions

$6,600

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP

1 transaction

$3,300

AG VENTURES

1 transaction

$2,500

ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

KOHL REAL ESTATE

2 transactions

$2,000

EUROOPTIC, LTD

2 transactions

$2,000

RANCH 440

1 transaction

$1,500

DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY

1 transaction

$1,000

HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC

1 transaction

$1,000

SCHRACK FARMS

1 transaction

$1,000

LUKE ROBISON FARMS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

ARK-LA-TEX FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LLC

1 transaction

$500

HARLOW CATTLE LLC

1 transaction

$500

MID ATLANTIC ASSOCIATION OF CAREER SCHOOLS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

BARENSFELD, WENDY H. MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

LEMEUR, HENRI E. JR.

1 transaction

$5,000

MYERS, JOEL N. DR.

1 transaction

$5,000

FONALLEDAS, JAIME L JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

GUILLERMETY, RAFAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

ASHER, ROBERT B. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

CIARROCCHI, GUY

1 transaction

$3,300

LEPRINO, JAMES G. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MYERS, STEPHANIE

1 transaction

$3,300

VAN VLECK, NICOLE

1 transaction

$3,300

VANN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2]

ID: B000490

Top Contributors

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationMANSURA, LA

$3,300

Dec 30, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationMANSURA, LA

$2,500

Oct 30, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Oct 28, 2024

DAVIS, HENRY BART III

SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER

IndividualDOERUN, GA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DAVIS, HENRY BART JR

SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER

IndividualDOERUN, GA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DAVIS, JEDD ADAM

SELF-EMPLOYED • FARMER

IndividualDOERUN, GA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DAVIS, PAULA

SELF EMPLOYED • FARMER

IndividualDOERUN, GA

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

REDDING, ROBERT L. JR

THE REDDING FIRM • PRESIDENT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL A

LEPRINO FOODS • VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

BARNES, ROY E.

THE BARNES LAW GROUP LLC • ATTORNEY

IndividualMARIETTA, GA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 41 nodes and 33 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $78,500

Top Donors - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs11 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: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 121 is a symbolic resolution honoring Scouting America's anniversary and does not address education policy, school choice, accreditation, or federal-state relations, which are the focus of the Project 2025 Department of Education section. Any alignment is only tangential through shared themes of youth development and civic engagement."

Key themes:youth developmentcharacter buildingcivic engagementnonprofit organizations

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 350-352AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's symbolic recognition of Scouting America aligns loosely with Project 2025's education theme of empowering families and fostering youth development outside federal control, but it does not implement or directly support any specific policy proposals."

Key themes:youth developmentcharacter educationfamily empowermentcommunity involvementnon-governmental organizations

— 318 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 121. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “FY 1905–2021 National Summary Cut and Sold Data Graphs,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2021_Natl_ Summary_Graph_wHarvestAcres.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests and Grasslands,” https://www.fs.usda. gov/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml (accessed December 16, 2022). 122. Donald J. Trump, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” Executive Order 13855, December 21, 2018, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800866/pdf/DCPD-201800866.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 126. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “History of the Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). 127. Daren Bakst, “Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,” The Daily Signal, July 17, 2014, https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/17/extreme-environmental- agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-comment-advisory-committee/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 128. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th- congress/senate-bill/3307/text (accessed December 16, 2022), and Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “Current Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/usda-hhs-development-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). — 319 — 11 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lindsey M. Burke MISSION Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Depart- ment of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government. In our pluralistic society, fami- lies and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs. Our postsecondary institutions should also reflect such diversity, with room for not only “traditional” liberal arts colleges and research universities but also faith-based institutions, career schools, military academies, and lifelong learning programs. Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, wherein education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families. Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education sav- ings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child's unique needs. States are eager to lead in K–12 education. For decades, they have acted inde- pendently of the federal government to pioneer a variety of constructive reforms and school choice programs. For example, in 2011, Arizona first piloted ESAs, which provide families roughly 90 percent of what the state would have spent on that child in public school to be used instead on education options such as private school tuition, online courses, and tutoring. In 2022, Arizona expanded the program to be available to all families.

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 121 is a symbolic resolution honoring a youth organization, whereas the Project 2025 HHS section addresses healthcare regulations, abortion training, childcare funding, maternal health, and rural/Indian health services; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:youth developmentfamily values

— 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 Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on recognizing Scouting America and does not address dietary guidelines, USDA reform, or any related agricultural policy, resulting in no meaningful alignment with the Project 2025 objective to eliminate or reform the Dietary Guidelines."

— 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would — 310 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise be moved to HHS. The Food and Nutrition Service that administers the food and nutrition programs would be eliminated. The Farm Service Agency, which administers many of the farm subsidy pro- grams, would be significantly smaller in size if the ideal farm subsidy reforms were adopted. Most important, a conservative USDA, as envisioned, would not be used as a governmental tool to transform the nation’s food system, but instead would respect the importance of efficient agricultural production and ensure that the government does not hinder farmers and ranchers from producing an abundant supply of safe and affordable food. For a conservative USDA to become a reality, and for it to stay on course with the mission as outlined, the White House must strongly support these reforms and install strong USDA leaders. These individuals almost certainly will be faced with opposition from some in the agricultural community who would fight changing subsidies in any fashion, although many of the reforms would likely be embraced by those in agriculture. There would be strong opposition from environmental groups and others who want the federal government to transform American agriculture to meet their ideo- logical objectives. Finally, there would be opposition from left-of-center groups who do not want to reform SNAP and would expand welfare and dependency—such as through universal free school meals—as opposed to reducing dependency. Reducing the scope of government and promoting individual freedom may not always be easy, but it is something that conservatives regularly should strive for. The listed reforms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture would help to accom- plish these objectives and are well worth fighting for to achieve a freer and more prosperous nation. CONCLUSION This chapter started with a discussion of the incredible success of American farmers and American agriculture in general. This is how the chapter should close as well. Americans are blessed with an agricultural sector, and a food system in general, which are worthy of incredible respect. A conservative USDA should appreciate this while recognizing that its role is to serve the interests of all Amer- icans, not special interests. By being a champion of unleashing the potential of American agriculture, a conservative USDA would help to ensure a future with an abundant supply of safe and affordable food for individuals and families in the United States and across the globe. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank all the contributors for their assistance, expertise, and insight into the development of this chapter. In addition, special thanks are due to Rachael Wilfong, who was instrumental in getting the chapter ready for submission.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill HRES 121 is a symbolic resolution supporting the designation of 'Scouting America Day' to honor the organization's contributions to youth development, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt focuses on rescinding federal education regulations related to special education equity, school meal programs, and student loan repayment—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 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 Rep. Thompson, Glenn

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 East Main Street in Mahaffey, Pennsylvania, as the "Robert Allen Bishop, Sr. Post Office Building".

119/hr/7517

Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

119/hr/7567

Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026

119/hr/7891

Back to All Bills