A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks.
Term Dictionary
If you come across any unfamiliar words while reading, these resources can help make everything clearer. Pick whichever one works best for you!
- Congress.gov Legislative Glossary - Comprehensive congressional terms
- NVFC Congressional Terms Glossary - Concise, easy-to-understand definitions
The gist
Non-binding Senate resolution condemning earmarks (lawmakers steering federal funds to specific local projects) and calling for a permanent ban to cut wasteful spending.
Who wins, who loses
Wins: fiscal conservatives, anti-corruption watchdogs, taxpayers worried about the $38 trillion national debt.
Loses: senators who use earmarks to fund local projects; communities that receive earmarked money for bridges, clinics, or schools.
What it does
Condemns 'congressionally directed spending' and 'community project funding' in any form.
Calls to restore the previous earmark ban permanently and immediately.
Cites $12.5 trillion in deficit spending since 2020 and $1 trillion yearly debt interest.
Resolution only ā€” no force of law, no funding changes.
Why should I care?
Supporters say earmarks waste money and invite corruption, pointing to past convictions of lawmakers and lobbyists. Critics argue earmarks let local communities get federal help for real needs like roads and hospitals, and that banning them just shifts power to unelected agencies. Federal debt shapes future taxes and program cuts that affect students. Where do you land? Vote below and use "Tell Your Rep" to make sure your voice reaches Congress.