Rick Scott (R-FL)
A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks.
A Republican resolution with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
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
A Senate resolution is the Senate speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the Senate agrees to it, it is officially the Senate's word; it is not a law, so the House and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution expresses opposition to congressional spending on earmarks, also known as "congressionally directed spending" or "community project funding." It notes that these practices returned in fiscal year 2022 after a 12-year hiatus. The resolution argues that earmarks lead to wasteful projects and contribute to the national debt and deficit spending. It calls for Congress to stop reckless spending and corrupt political dealing. Finally, it seeks to restore a permanent and immediate ban on the use of earmarks.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +5
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill seeks to reduce the national debt by banning earmarks and stopping reckless federal spending.
- Scored +5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The resolution aims to reduce government spending by imposing a permanent ban on congressionally directed spending.
- Scored +5
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The bill advocates for more prescriptive and effective funding of programs rather than wasteful earmarks.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The removal of community project funding may negatively impact rural areas that rely on directed federal spending.
- Scored -3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The ban on community project funding may reduce direct financial support for local community needs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Curbing Inflation: The resolution affirms a need for Congress to reign in overspending to help curb the inflation crisis that is currently crippling families (Section 3).
-
Debt Reduction: By condemning earmarks and calling for the end of reckless Federal spending, the resolution aims to help the United States start paying down its debt (Whereas clauses).
-
Ending Potential Corruption: The resolution notes that several former Members of Congress and lobbyists have been convicted of crimes related to earmarking, and it seeks to end corrupt political dealing (Whereas clauses and Section 1).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Community Funding: The resolution calls to condemn and restore a permanent ban on "community project funding," which could impact the direct allocation of taxpayer dollars to specific projects (Section 1 and Section 2).
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill advocates for more prescriptive and effective funding of programs rather than wasteful earmarks. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The resolution aims to reduce government spending by imposing a permanent ban on congressionally directed spending. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill seeks to reduce the national debt by banning earmarks and stopping reckless federal spending. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — The bill asserts that reigning in overspending will help curb the inflation crisis.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill aims to curb inflation and reduce national debt to protect family finances. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The removal of community project funding may negatively impact rural areas that rely on directed federal spending. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The ban on community project funding may reduce direct financial support for local community needs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill aims to end corrupt political dealing associated with the earmarking process.
- 3/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/20/2025
- Submitted in Senate
- Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
John BarrassoRepublican · Wyoming
Ron JohnsonRepublican · Wisconsin
Mike LeeRepublican · Utah