Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4312) to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of student athletes and to promote fair competition with respect to intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1005) to prohibit elementary and secondary schools from accepting funds from or entering into contracts with the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1049) to ensure that parents are aware of foreign influence in their child's public school, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1069) to prohibit the availability of Federal education funds for elementary and secondary schools that receive direct or indirect support from the Government of the People's Republic of China; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2965) to require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to ensure that the small business regulatory budget for a small business concern in a fiscal year is not greater than zero, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4305) to direct the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to establish a Red Tape Hotline to receive notifications of burdensome agency rules, and for other purposes.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hres/916
Last Updated: December 1, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

ID: G000568

Follow the money

The bill

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4312) to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of student athletes and to promote fair competition with respect to intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1005) to prohibit elementary and secondary schools from accepting funds from or entering into contracts with the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1049) to ensure that parents are aware of foreign influence in their child's public school, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1069) to prohibit the availability of Federal education funds for elementary and secondary schools that receive direct or indirect support from the Government of the People's Republic of China; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2965) to require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to ensure that the small business regulatory budget for a small business concern in a fiscal year is not greater than zero, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4305) to direct the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to establish a Red Tape Hotline to receive notifications of burdensome agency rules, and for other purposes.

HRES. 916, 119th Congress — read as touching Teachers Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

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

The money

$66,000 raised

20 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

Invalid Date

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 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

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

First off, I'm impressed by the sheer audacity of the title: "Providing for consideration of..." Yeah, because that's exactly what this bill does – provides a veneer of legitimacy for a laundry list of pork-barrel projects and special interest handouts.

Now, let's get to the meat (or rather, the gristle) of the matter. The total funding amounts are conveniently omitted from the text, but I'm sure it's just an oversight... or a clever attempt to hide the true extent of the fiscal hemorrhage.

As for key programs and agencies receiving funds, we have:

* Student athlete rights: because God forbid our collegiate athletes don't get their fair share of endorsement deals. * Anti-China provisions: because who needs diplomacy when you can just legislate xenophobia? * Small Business Administration goodies: because small businesses are clearly the ones driving the economy (just ask the lobbyists). * Red Tape Hotline: because what every business needs is a hotline to complain about regulations that might actually protect consumers.

Notable increases or decreases? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill is a masterclass in obfuscation, with amendments and riders attached like barnacles on a sinking ship.

Speaking of which, let's talk about those riders. We've got:

* Prohibitions on accepting Chinese funds for schools: because who needs international cooperation when you can just legislate paranoia? * Requirements for small business regulatory budgets to be zero: because regulations are clearly the root of all evil (just ask the Koch brothers).

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? *chuckles* Oh, please. This bill is a fiscal time bomb, but hey, who needs responsible governance when you can just kick the can down the road?

In conclusion, this appropriations bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a Frankenstein's monster of special interests, pork-barrel projects, and xenophobic grandstanding. And we wonder why our national debt is skyrocketing?

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$66,000
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
RAY, RICHIE
2 transactions
$6,600
2
CRANE, DAVID
2 transactions
$6,600
3
BUNN, JAMES O.
1 transaction
$3,300
4
CHARLES, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
5
HAMER, JONATHAN S.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
JOURNAY, JUSTIN
1 transaction
$3,300
7
PATEL, GOPESH
1 transaction
$3,300
8
WORLEY, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
BLUMENFELD, JACOB
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MORRISSEY, DENISE HENRY
1 transaction
$3,300
11
SPARKS, L. DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MORRISEY, DENISE HENRY
1 transaction
$3,300
13
BARNETTE, JAMES R.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
UIHLEIN, RICHARD E.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
WILLCOX, DARREN
1 transaction
$3,300
16
FAISON, JAY W.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
GILLIAM, MARVIN
1 transaction
$3,300
18
MONTGOMERY, H. RONNIE
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 20 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $66,000

Top Donors - Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

  • −Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.70

    The bills mentioned in Section 3 focus on limiting foreign influence in public schools, which could lead to increased scrutiny and potential restrictions on teacher unions' activities or funding.

  • −Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60

    Section 4 also aims to limit the regulatory budget for small businesses, which might reduce the influence of labor unions in these industries.

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: 65%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 916 is a procedural resolution that bundles bills on student athlete rights, foreign‑influence education funding restrictions, and small‑business regulatory relief; it does not directly address Project 2025’s education‑choice tax credit, state opt‑out of federal programs, or higher‑education accreditation reforms, resulting only a tangential connection through general education‑funding themes."

Key themes:education fundingfederal oversightstate/local control

— 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 Education

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 916 is a procedural resolution that brings forward bills on student athlete rights, China-related education funding restrictions, and small business regulatory relief, none of which directly address the Project 2025 Department of Education priorities such as FERPA/PPRA reforms, parental rights protections, gender ideology policies, or school choice expansion."

Key themes:education fundingfederal oversightschool regulations

— 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

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on procedural consideration of legislation related to student athlete rights, foreign influence in education funding, and small business regulatory relief, which does not directly address Project 2025's education policy objectives such as Title I reform, micro-education savings accounts, or state opt-out of federal programs. While both involve education funding, the bill's emphasis on restricting funds due to foreign ties and procedural rules lacks alignment with Project 2025's "

Key themes:education fundingfederal education policystate/local control

— 350 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise would give the families of children with special needs approximately $1,800 per child to help meet a child’s unique learning needs. l Members of Congress and the White House should consider a similar update to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I is the largest portion of federal taxpayer spending under this federal education law, and the section provides additional taxpayer resources to schools or groups of schools in lower income areas. Federal taxpayers committed $16.3 billion to Title I in FY 2019, spending that is dedicated to students in low-income areas of the U.S. Per student, this spending amounts to more than $1,400 for a child in a large city and approximately $1,300 for a student in a remote, rural area.19 Research finds, though, that this enormous investment has not produced positive results for children in need. The achievement gap between children from the highest and lowest income deciles has not improved over the past 50 years. And recent, dismal outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed declines for all students, with math scores registering declines for the first time in history. l Initially, the responsibilities for administering and overseeing Title I should be moved to HHS, along with IDEA. l Students attending schools that receive Title I spending should also have access to micro-education savings accounts that allow families to choose how and where their children learn according to their needs. l Parents should be allowed to use their child’s Title I resources to help pay for private learning options including tutoring services and curricular materials. l Over a 10-year period, the federal spending should be phased out and states should assume decision-making control over how to provide a quality education to children from low-income families. Additional School Choice Options House Republicans included school choice in their “Commitment to America” agenda. l Though actions by state lawmakers are essential and any federal policies should be strictly designed so they do not conflict with state activities, Congress could consider school choice legislation such — 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills