Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This resolution is a non-binding statement from the House expressing support for roughly doubling federal career and technical education funding. It does not change law or appropriate money; instead it affirms the importance of these programs and urges the House Committee on Education and Workforce to authorize $13 billion in new spending over ten years. Because it is a simple House resolution, it applies only to the House and does not require action by the Senate or the President. It is advisory and does not itself create or increase federal funding.
This House resolution affirms support for the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and urges the House Education and Workforce Committee to authorize $13 billion in new spending over ten years, approximately doubling currently authorized funding for federal career and technical education (CTE) programs.
It states that current funding (about $1.44 billion in FY2024) is insufficient to meet workforce retraining needs created by economic shifts and the COVID-19 recovery.
As a House resolution it is nonbinding and cannot directly appropriate funds; translating the endorsement into enacted appropriations is uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a non-binding resolution that clearly states the policy concern and quantifies a specific funding request, while appropriately remaining light on mandatory implementation, appropriation authority, and oversight details.
Scope and scale of federal spending: expansion vs restraint
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and scale of federal spending: expansion vs restraint
Overall strongly supportive.
Views the resolution as a needed federal investment to expand equitable access to upskilling and reskilling, raise earnings, and address structural workforce shifts.
Would press for targeting funds to low-income, historically marginalized communities and strong accountability.
Generally supportive but pragmatic.
Sees the resolution as a reasonable response to skills gaps and job transitions, with potential bipartisan appeal.
Wants clear fiscal accounting, phased implementation, and evidence requirements to ensure value for money.
Skeptical or opposed.
Agrees workforce training is important but objects to large federal spending increases and prefers state, local, and private-sector solutions.
Concerns center on federal overreach, budgetary impact, and program effectiveness.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a House resolution it is nonbinding and cannot directly appropriate funds; translating the endorsement into enacted appropriations is uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and scale of federal spending: expansion vs restraint
As a House resolution it is nonbinding and cannot directly appropriate funds; translating the endorsement into enacted appropriations is un…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a non-binding resolution that clearly states the policy concern and quantifies a specific funding request, while appropriately remaining light on mandatory impleme…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.