The bill
A resolution supporting the contributions of Catholic schools in the United States and celebrating the 51st annual National Catholic Schools Week.
SRES. 45, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
A resolution supporting the contributions of Catholic schools in the United States and celebrating the 51st annual National Catholic Schools Week.
Download PDFBill ID: 119/sres/45
Last Updated: February 4, 2026
Sponsored by
Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
ID: S001227
Follow the money
The sponsor
Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$158,400 raised
25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
70% 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
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S487-488; text: CR S486-487)
January 28, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
📍 Current Status
Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.
✅
Passed Senate
🏛️
House Review
🎉
Passed Congress
🖊️
Presidential Action
⚖️
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another meaningless resolution from our esteemed leaders, because what the country really needs is more empty praise for a specific group of schools. Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of SRES 45 is to stroke the egos of Catholic school administrators and politicians who want to appear supportive of "values-based education." The objective is to create a feel-good resolution that accomplishes nothing, while allowing senators to claim they're doing something for education. How quaint.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no key provisions or changes to existing law. This is a non-binding resolution, which means it's about as effective as a participation trophy. It's a symbolic gesture that doesn't even have the decency to be a real bill with actual policy implications.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are Catholic schools, their administrators, and politicians who want to curry favor with the Catholic voting bloc. Oh, and let's not forget the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who get to bask in the glory of this meaningless resolution.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution won't change a single policy or allocate any funding to improve education. It's a PR stunt designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing. The only implication is that our leaders are more interested in grandstanding than actual governance.
Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Narcissism," where the primary goal is to feed the ego of its sponsors rather than address any real issue. It's a symptom of a larger disease: the inability of politicians to tackle meaningful problems due to their addiction to empty rhetoric and special interest pandering.
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of actual policy changes that benefit the country as a whole, not just specific interest groups. But don't hold your breath; our leaders are too busy congratulating themselves on this meaningless resolution to actually do anything useful.
Related Topics
Education & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$158,400
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$13,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$145,400
No PAC contributions found
1
ELEVATE MISSOURI
$6,700
2
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA TRIBE
$2,900
3
PETER J SPALITTO DDS PC
$2,900
4
KIRKWOOD PLUMBING INC
$500
No committee contributions found
1
POPOLO, JOE
$13,200
2
WALTON, TROY
$11,600
3
PFAUTCH, ROY
$11,600
4
ROSS, DONALD
$10,000
5
TAYLOR, ANDREW
$6,600
6
TAYLOR, BARBARA
$6,600
7
KELSEY, J DAVID
$6,600
8
FOGEL, DAVID
$6,600
9
PALOMO, OSWALDO
$6,600
10
TAMASI, DAVID
$6,600
11
MCKNIGHT, ANDREW
$6,600
12
POPOLO, CHRIS
$6,600
13
ASHWORTH, CAROL
$6,600
14
ASHWORTH, JIMMY
$6,600
15
GIBBS, HALLIE H.
$6,600
16
GIDWITZ, RONALD J.
$6,600
17
STEWARD, DAVE
$6,600
18
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
$6,600
19
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
$6,600
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
ID: K000384
Top Contributors
10
1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,300
Jun 18, 2024
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 26, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 25, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
6
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024
7
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 29, 2023
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Oct 25, 2023
9
STONEHALL FARM
OrganizationTHE PLAINS, VA
$500
Jun 30, 2024
10
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Oct 25, 2023
Donor Network - Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 56 nodes and 28 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $162,700
Top Donors - Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount
4 Orgs19 Individuals
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.
- −For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
The bill supports Catholic schools, which could be seen as competing with for-profit education institutions, potentially drawing students away from them (Section: Whereas Catholic schools are an affordable option for parents, particularly in underserved urban areas)
- +Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.60
The bill applauds the dedication of Catholic school teachers, which could be seen as supportive of the teaching profession and potentially aligned with the interests of teachers unions (Section: (3) supports-- (A) the dedication of Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers across the United States toward academic excellence)
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
Moderate
Vector: 61%Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The resolution shares Project 2025's emphasis on supporting faith‑based education and recognizing the value of Catholic schools, but it does not implement any of the concrete policy mechanisms (e.g., scholarship tax credits, opt‑out provisions, accreditation reforms) advocated in the Project 2025 agenda."
Key themes:faith-based educationschool choice supportrecognition of Catholic schoolsprotection of religious institutionseducational freedom
— 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
Moderate
Vector: 59%Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill’s symbolic support for Catholic schools aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on advancing school choice and protecting faith‑based/non‑public education, though it does not implement any of the specific policy proposals (e.g., FERPA amendments, parental‑rights legislation, gender‑ideology restrictions)."
Key themes:school choicefaith-based educationparental rightsnon-public school support
— 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: 58%Pages: 374-376AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill is a symbolic recognition of Catholic schools, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on higher education loan reform, teacher union charters, parental rights, and opposition to critical race theory. Both touch on education but address different sectors and policy levers, resulting only in tangential thematic overlap."
Key themes:educationfaith-based schoolingparental rightsschool choicerecognition of private education
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school
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.