A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The ``Earmark Elimination Act of 2026'' aims to stop the House of Representatives from considering legislation that contains earmarks. It prohibits bills, joint resolutions, amendments, or conference reports from being considered if they include a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit. If a point of order is raised and sustained, the specific earmark or benefit is removed from the measure. The bill also outlines special procedures for conference reports and motions between the House and Senate. Additionally, it provides specific definitions for what constitutes a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, and a limited tariff benefit.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill reduces the use of non-competitive earmarks which can often be used for opaque legislative spending.
- Scored +3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill limits the ability of members of Congress to direct specific spending authority to particular entities or districts.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -5
Does this cut taxes for small businesses?
The bill prohibits specific tax benefits that may be sought by small businesses through legislative requests.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill prevents the use of limited tariff benefits and specific tax advantages that business owners might otherwise lobby for.
- Scored -3
Would high-income households be better off under this?
The bill targets and removes specific tax benefits and transition relief that may benefit high-income entities.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Removal of specific spending requests: Under Section 2(a)(1) and Section 3(1), the bill would prohibit legislation that includes provisions requested by a Member or Senator to provide specific spending authority to a particular entity, State, locality, or congressional district outside of competitive or formula-driven processes.
-
Elimination of unique tax advantages: Per Section 3(2), the bill targets revenue-losing provisions that provide tax deductions, credits, or exclusions to 10 or fewer beneficiaries with non-uniform eligibility criteria, as well as transition relief for specific beneficiaries.
-
Restriction of specific tariff benefits: According to Section 3(3), the bill would prevent the consideration of provisions that modify the Harmonized Tariff Schedule in a way that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Rejection of legislative measures: Under Section 2(a)(3), if a point of order is raised and sustained regarding a conference report, the report or motion could be considered rejected, which would require the House to decide on whether to recede and concur in a Senate amendment or insist on its own disagreement.
-
Removal of specific provisions from bills: As stated in Section 2(a)(2), if a point of order is sustained, a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit shall be deemed stricken from the measure involved.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill prevents the use of limited tariff benefits and specific tax advantages that business owners might otherwise lobby for. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill targets and removes specific tax benefits and transition relief that may benefit high-income entities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The prohibition of specific spending requests may eliminate targeted social spending programs requested by lawmakers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill reduces the use of non-competitive earmarks which can often be used for opaque legislative spending.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill limits the ability of members of Congress to direct specific spending authority to particular entities or districts. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — The bill prohibits specific tax benefits that may be sought by small businesses through legislative requests.
- 1/13/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Andrew ClydeRepublican · Georgia