The bill
Julius Rosenwald and Rosenwald Schools National Historical Park Act
S. 3925, 119th Congress.
Sponsored by
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
ID: D000563
Follow the money
The bill
S. 3925, 119th Congress.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 353-355 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
July 20, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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!
**Summary of S. 3925: Julius Rosenwald and Rosenwald Schools National Historical Park Act**
**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill seeks to establish the Julius Rosenwald and Rosenwald Schools National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System. Its stated purpose is to commemorate Julius Rosenwald—philanthropist, former Sears executive, and son of German-Jewish immigrants—and the legacy of the Rosenwald Schools, which were built between 1912 and 1932 across 15 Southern states to educate over 600,000 African American children during the Jim Crow era. The park aims to honor Rosenwald’s partnership with Booker T. Washington, preserve representative school sites (e.g., in Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia), establish a visitor center near the former Sears Merchandising Complex in Chicago, and create a National Park Service network to connect surviving Rosenwald Schools for educational outreach. The bill frames this as an act of historical justice and democratic education.
**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends no existing statutes directly but creates a new National Park System unit under the Secretary of the Interior. Key provisions include: - Formal establishment of the park (Sec. 4(a)). - Designation of specific Rosenwald School sites for preservation (San Domingo School, MD; Saint George School, SC; Woodville School, VA). - Authorization for a headquarters and visitor center in Chicago’s North Lawndale neighborhood, near the former Sears complex. - Creation of the “Rosenwald Schools National Network” to link remaining schools and disseminate historical information (Sec. 5). - Definitions of key terms (Map, Network, Park, Secretary) for implementation (Sec. 3). No funding amounts are specified in the provided text, leaving appropriations to future action.
**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Beneficiaries**: Descendants of Rosenwald School students, African American communities in the South, historians, educators, and civil rights legacy organizations. - **Administrative Burden**: National Park Service (NPS), tasked with managing the new unit, coordinating the network, and developing interpretive programs—adding to its already strained workload. - **Local Communities**: North Lawndale (Chicago) and the three designated school sites may see increased tourism and federal investment, though likely modest. - **Taxpayers**: Will ultimately fund the park’s operations, maintenance, and staffing—another line item in the growing ledger of symbolic federal commemorations. - **Political Sponsors**: Senators Durbin, Van Hollen, Booker, et al., gain a bipartisan-friendly legacy project that costs little politically but allows them to virtue-signal on racial justice and education.
**4. Potential Impact & Implications** While the bill’s intentions are historically sound—Rosenwald’s philanthropy was genuinely transformative—the establishment of yet another niche national park raises questions about mission creep within the NPS. With over 400 existing units and a $12 billion maintenance backlog, adding a park centered on preserved school buildings and a Chicago visitor center risks diluting focus from iconic natural and cultural landmarks. The real impact may be more symbolic than substantive: a feel-good measure that lets Congress appear to honor Black history and Jewish philanthropy without addressing systemic inequities in education funding today. It’s legislative comfort food—nutritionally empty but emotionally satisfying—for lawmakers who’d rather build a park than fix the schools that still fail too many children. In short: a well-meaning bandage on a broken system, administered by an agency already bleeding from a thousand cuts.
*(Word count: 398)*
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: V000128
Top Contributors
22
ID: A000382
Top Contributors
27
ID: D000622
Top Contributors
26
ID: B001288
Top Contributors
22
ID: W000802
Top Contributors
20
ID: W000805
Top Contributors
23
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
20
ID: K000384
Top Contributors
30
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 34 nodes and 52 connections
Total contributions: $52
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on historical preservation and education through a national park commemorating Rosenwald Schools, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reducing federal involvement in education, block-granting funds, and promoting workforce-aligned, market-driven postsecondary education. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address federal education deregulation, state control of funding, or career technical education expansion."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on establishing a national historical park to preserve Rosenwald Schools and honor educational philanthropy, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reducing federal education bureaucracy, promoting school choice, and limiting federal oversight—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond a shared concern for education, but divergent approaches and goals."
— 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 — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on establishing a national historical park to honor Julius Rosenwald and preserve Rosenwald Schools, emphasizing civil rights, education history, and interracial cooperation. Project 2025's Department of Education section centers on restructuring federal education programs, eliminating earmarks, moving offices like OCR and NCES, block-granting funds to HBCUs and tribal colleges, and spinning off federal student aid. While both touch on education and HBCUs, the bill does not addr"
— 327 — Department of Education l Transfer the Vocational Rehabilitation Grants for Native American students to the Bureau of Indian Education. l Phase out earmarks for a variety of special institutions, as originally envisioned. l To the extent that OSERS supports federal efforts to enforce our laws against discrimination of individuals with disabilities, those assets should be moved to the Department of Justice (DOJ) along with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Office for Postsecondary Education (OPE) l The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate or move OPE programs to ETA at the Department of Labor. l Funding to institutions should be block-granted and narrowed to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and tribally controlled colleges. l Move programs deemed important to our national security interests to the Department of State. Institute of Education Sciences (IES) l Move ED’s statistical office, the National Commission for Education Statistics (NCES), to the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau. If Congress believes the federal government can play a valuable research role, those research centers can be moved to the National Science Foundation. If Congress decides to maintain IES as an independent agency, it needs to address major governance and management issues that keep it from being a productive contributor to the knowledge base related to teaching and learning. Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) l The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin off FSA and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management. With a statutory charge that it preserve the federal student loan portfolio for the benefit of the taxpayers and students, this new entity would be (1) profession- ally governed by an agency head and board of trustees appointed by the President — 328 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 2 Trends in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Mathematics EIGHTH-GRADE MATH, AVERAGE SCORES 300 290 280 282 274 270 260 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 FOURTH-GRADE MATH, AVERAGE SCORES 250 240 241 236 230 220 210 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 SOURCES: The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 4, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ mathematics/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023), and The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 8, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.