Expressing support for the Nation's local public K-12 schools and condemning any actions that would defund public education or weaken or dismantle the Department of Education.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 94
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Education
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-27T09:07:02Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
H. Res. 94 is a non-binding House resolution that expresses strong support for the nation's local public K-12 schools. It condemns any efforts to defund public education, weaken, or dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (often called the Department). The resolution highlights the importance of federal involvement in ensuring equal educational opportunities, especially for disadvantaged students.
Key Provisions Outlined
The resolution includes a series of "Whereas" clauses that provide background and rationale, followed by a "Resolved" section with four main affirmations:
- Strong support for federal investment: It backs ongoing federal funding for public K-12 schools and the students and families they serve.
- Affirmation of the Department's role: It recognizes the Department as essential to the U.S. public education system.
- Protection against diversion of funds: It states that federal investments in public education should not be redirected (e.g., via vouchers) to privately run K-12 schools.
- Rejection of harmful actions: It opposes executive branch efforts to dismantle or relocate major offices or the entire Department, reduce federal funding, block major grant programs, or shift funding responsibilities to state and local governments.
The "Whereas" clauses emphasize:
- The history and impact of key laws like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, which provides federal aid to schools) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, which ensures education for students with disabilities).
- Statistics on public school enrollment (e.g., 90% of students attend public schools, including 95% of those with disabilities).
- The Department's role in funding programs for low-income students, rural schools, English learners, teacher training, civil rights enforcement, and more.
- Warnings that cutting federal support would harm under-resourced communities and the U.S. economy.
Significant Changes to Existing Law Introduced
This resolution introduces no changes to existing law. As a House resolution, it is symbolic and does not have the force of law; it simply states the House's position and does not amend statutes, create new programs, or enforce penalties.
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: It could influence congressional debates and budget decisions, potentially protecting the Department from restructuring or cuts. However, it has no direct authority to prevent executive actions.
- On citizens: Public school students, especially in low-income, rural, or minority communities, and those with disabilities, may benefit indirectly if it sways policymakers to maintain federal funding for programs like Title I grants (aid for low-income schools) and IDEA services. Without such funding, local schools might face cuts, affecting millions of students.
- On international relations: Minimal direct impact, though it underscores U.S. commitment to public education as a driver of economic competitiveness globally.
Overall, the resolution's effects are primarily political and rhetorical, aiming to build opposition to proposed changes in education policy.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Public K-12 schools and educators: Serve over 49 million students; rely on federal grants for operations, teacher training, and special programs.
- Students and families: Particularly those from low-income backgrounds, rural areas, students of color, English learners, and students with disabilities (over 7.5 million under IDEA).
- U.S. Department of Education: Its staff, budget, and programs (e.g., civil rights enforcement, rural education grants) are defended against potential dismantling.
- State and local governments: Would face increased funding burdens without federal support, potentially leading to cuts in under-resourced areas.
- Advocacy groups and communities: Includes parents, civil rights organizations, and rural or Native American stakeholders who benefit from targeted federal aid.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The resolution asserts that the executive branch lacks legal authority to unilaterally dismantle the Department or major programs, referencing its establishment under the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979. However, it does not create enforceable limits and could be cited in future lawsuits challenging executive actions.
- Constitutional: It aligns with the U.S. Constitution's limited federal role in education (a state responsibility under the 10th Amendment) but defends federal equity efforts under laws like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination). No direct constitutional challenges are raised.
- Political: Introduced by over 50 House members (mostly Democrats) and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, it serves as a partisan statement amid debates over federal education funding and potential Republican-led reforms (e.g., school vouchers or Department abolition). It marks anniversaries of key education laws, potentially galvanizing support in an election-year context, but its non-binding nature limits it to influencing public opinion and legislative priorities.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
Cosponsors (99)
Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7], Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2], Rep. Trahan, Lori [D-MA-3], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24], Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2], Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38], Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7] and 49 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2025-02-04: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Expressing support for the Nation’s local public K–12 schools and condemning any actions that would defund public education or weaken or dismantle the Department of Education. — issued 2025-02-04 — PDF (7 pages)