A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks.

Bill Number

S.Res. 517

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Congress

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-11-20: Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Last Updated

2026-03-13T11:18:30Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This Senate Resolution (S. Res. 517) aims to express strong opposition to the use of "earmarks," which are also called "congressionally directed spending" or "community project funding." These are provisions in federal spending bills that direct money to specific local projects or interests, often requested by lawmakers. The resolution highlights concerns about wasteful spending amid the U.S. national debt exceeding $38 trillion and rising deficits, urging a return to fiscal responsibility.

Key Provisions

• Condemnation of Earmarks: The Senate condemns the use of earmarks in any form for directing taxpayer dollars, viewing them as a way to bypass Senate rules and fund wasteful projects.
• Reaffirmation of Ban: It reaffirms previous Senate Republican actions, including a 2010 moratorium and votes in 2019 and 2021 for a permanent ban, and calls for immediately restoring and enforcing this ban.
• Call for Fiscal Restraint: The resolution affirms the need for Congress to reduce overspending to address inflation and its effects on American families, emphasizing wise use of taxpayer money for the best return on investment.

The "Whereas" clauses provide context, noting the return of earmarks in 2022 after a 12-year pause, massive deficit spending since 2020 (over $12.5 trillion), annual interest payments on the debt exceeding $1 trillion, and projections of debt doubling by 2055. It also references past criticisms of earmarks as leading to corruption and overspending, including convictions of former lawmakers and lobbyists.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This is a non-binding resolution, so it introduces no legal changes to existing law. Earmarks were banned informally by Senate Republicans in 2010 but returned in 2022 under new transparency rules. The resolution seeks to symbolically restore the prior ban but lacks enforcement power; any actual ban would require new legislation or changes to congressional rules.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Could indirectly pressure agencies to prioritize broader federal programs over localized earmark requests, potentially streamlining budgets but reducing funding for specific community needs.
• On Citizens: Aims to curb inflation and debt burdens by limiting wasteful spending, which might benefit taxpayers through lower long-term costs, though it could delay or eliminate funding for local projects like infrastructure or community services.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but reducing U.S. debt and deficits could strengthen the country's global financial standing and credibility in international economic discussions.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Congress and Lawmakers: Primarily Senate Republicans (sponsors include Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Sen. Mike Lee, and Sen. Ron Johnson), who may use this to push for party-line fiscal policies; affects all members by challenging earmark practices in appropriations bills.
• Taxpayers and American Families: Targeted as beneficiaries through reduced wasteful spending and inflation control.
• Local Governments and Communities: Potentially harmed if earmarks for regional projects are curtailed.
• Lobbyists and Special Interests: Adversely affected, as earmarks have been linked to influence-peddling and corruption.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: As a simple resolution, it has no force of law and cannot override congressional appropriations processes. It references Congress's constitutional "power of the purse" (Article I, Section 9), which gives lawmakers authority over spending, but stresses the need for prescriptive (clear and targeted) funding rather than earmarks.
• Constitutional: Reinforces debates on separation of powers, ensuring spending aligns with national priorities amid growing debt, without challenging core constitutional frameworks.
• Political: Serves as a partisan signal from fiscal conservatives to rally support against perceived corruption and overspending; could influence midterm or future budget negotiations but risks deepening divides in Congress, where earmarks are defended by some as tools for bipartisan deal-making and local representation.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Cosponsors (3)

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI], Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

Recent Actions

• 2025-11-20: Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
• 2025-11-20: Submitted in Senate

Bill Versions

• Expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks. — issued 2025-11-20 — PDF (3 pages)