The bill
A resolution expressing support for the designation of November 8, 2025, as "National First-Generation College Celebration Day".
SRES. 496, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
A resolution expressing support for the designation of November 8, 2025, as "National First-Generation College Celebration Day".
Download PDFBill ID: 119/sres/496
Last Updated: November 17, 2025
Sponsored by
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
ID: M001198
Follow the money
The sponsor
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$154,700 raised
24 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 meaningless resolution from the esteemed members of Congress, because what's more pressing than designating a national day to celebrate first-generation college students? I mean, it's not like there are actual problems to solve or anything.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to make politicians feel good about themselves while pretending to care about education. The objective is to designate November 8, 2025, as "National First-Generation College Celebration Day" because, apparently, we need a national day to celebrate people who managed to get into college despite their parents not having a degree.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law. This is just a resolution, which means it's all fluff and no substance. It's like a participation trophy for politicians who want to look like they're doing something about education without actually doing anything.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties are the politicians who sponsored this resolution, who will now get to pat themselves on the back for "supporting" first-generation college students. The stakeholders are the lobbyists and special interest groups who will use this resolution as a way to pretend that they care about education while actually pushing their own agendas.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this resolution is zero. Zilch. Nada. It's just a feel-good measure that won't change anything in the real world. But hey, it might make some politicians look good on social media, so there's that. As for implications, well, it implies that our politicians are more interested in grandstanding than actually solving problems.
Diagnosis: This resolution is suffering from a bad case of " Politician-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive desire to appear virtuous without actually doing anything meaningful. Symptoms include empty rhetoric, pointless resolutions, and a complete lack of substance. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all.
In short, this resolution is a joke. It's a waste of time and resources that could be better spent on actual policy changes that might make a difference in people's lives. But hey, at least our politicians are good at pretending to care.
Related Topics
Education & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$154,700
19 donors
PACs
$9,500
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$145,200
1
THE KROGER CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$5,500
2
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
$2,500
3
THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE
$1,500
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
1
BRACH, JEREMIAH
$26,400
2
ILLIG, MICHAEL
$13,200
3
MADAY, GREG
$13,200
4
DOWNING, BARRY L.
$13,200
5
ILLIG, BONNE
$6,600
6
ILLIG, AMY
$6,600
7
MADAY, LIZ
$6,600
8
MAXWELL, KORB II
$6,600
9
ILLIG, CLIFFORD
$6,600
10
PRENGER, JEANETTE
$6,600
11
O'BRATE, CECIL L.
$6,600
12
SPARKS, LANCE
$6,600
13
LINDSEY, RYAN
$6,600
14
LEFKOWITZ, JOEL
$6,600
15
SMILOWITZ, DOV
$6,600
16
MCKEE, JACK C.
$6,600
Donor Network - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 32 nodes and 24 connections (38 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $154,700
Top Donors - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
3 PACs16 Individuals
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.
- −For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
The bill celebrates the Higher Education Act of 1965, which helped increase access to postsecondary education for low-income and first-generation college students, potentially reducing demand for for-profit education services (Section: Whereas the Higher Education Act of 1965 was focused on increasing postsecondary education access and success for students, particularly low-income and first-generation college students)
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: 60%Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section concern higher education and access for underrepresented students, but the bill is a symbolic recognition day while Project 2025 focuses on structural reforms like school choice, accreditation changes, and limiting DEI mandates, resulting only tangential overlap."
Key themes:higher education accessfirst-generation studentsHigher Education Act
— 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: 60%Pages: 356-358AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill expresses support for a celebratory day for first-generation college students, which is tangential to Project 2025's focus on reducing federal intervention in education and critiquing the effectiveness of programs like the Higher Education Act; there is no direct policy overlap."
Key themes:first-generation college studentsHigher Education Act of 1965postsecondary education access
— 323 — Department of Education l Stopping executive overreach. Congress should set policy—not Presidents through pen-and-phone executive orders, and not agencies through regulations and guidance. National emergency declarations should expire absent express congressional authorization within 60 days after the date of the declaration. Bolstered by an ever-growing cabal of special interests that thrive off federal largesse, the infrastructure that supports America’s costly federal intervention in education from early childhood through graduate school has entrenched itself. But, unlike the public sector bureaucracies, public employee unions, and the higher education lobby, families and students do not need a Department of Education to learn, grow, and improve their lives. It is critical that the next Administration tackle this entrenched infrastructure. NEEDED REFORMS Federal intervention in education has failed to promote student achievement. After trillions spent since 1965 on the collective programs now housed within the walls of the department, student academic outcomes remain stagnant. On the main National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading out- comes on the 2022 administration have remained unchanged over the past 30 years. Declines in math performance are even more concerning than students’ lack of progress on reading outcomes. Fourth- and eighth-grade math scores saw the largest decline since the assessments were first administered in 1990. Average fourth-grade math scores declined five points, and average eighth-grade math scores declined eight points. Just one-third of eighth graders nationally are proficient in reading and math. Just 27 percent of eighth graders were pro- ficient in math in 2022, and just 31 percent of eighth graders scored proficient in reading in 2022. The NAEP Long-term Trend Assessment shows academic stagnation since the 1970s, with particular stagnation in the reading scores of 13-year-old students since 1971, when the assessment was first administered. Math scores, though modestly improved, are still lackluster. Additionally, the department has created a “shadow” department of education operating in states across the country. Federal mandates, programs, and proclama- tions have spurred a hiring spree among state education agencies, with more than 48,000 employees currently on staff in state agencies across the country. Those employees are more than 10 times the number of employees (4,400)10 at the federal Department of Education, and their jobs largely entail reporting back to Washing- ton. Research conducted by The Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher finds that the federal government funds 41 percent of the salary costs of state educa- tion agencies.11 — 324 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 1 Trends in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading EIGHTH-GRADE READING, AVERAGE SCORES 270 265 263 260 260 255 1992 1994 1998 ’02’03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 FOURTH-GRADE READING, AVERAGE SCORES 225 220 220 217 215 210 1992 1994 1998 2000 ’02’03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 SOURCES: The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 4, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023), and The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 8, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org
Department of Education
Weak
Vector: 59%Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on celebrating first-generation college students and supporting higher education access, which tangentially relates to Project 2025's broader education equity themes but does not align with its specific policy directives such as rescinding Equity in IDEA, opposing SOGI in school meals, or phasing out income-driven repayment plans."
Key themes:education accessfirst-generation studentshigher educationcivil rightsdisadvantaged students
— 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.