Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill seeks to eliminate discretionary government spending accounts called slush funds.
The problem
Congress concerns that some government agencies use discretionary funds without proper oversight or accountability, potentially wasting taxpayer money.
The proposal
Requires transparency requirements, stricter controls, and audits on discretionary spending accounts. Likely redirects funds to specific authorized purposes.
The impact
Federal agencies lose spending flexibility. Taxpayers gain visibility into fund use. Congress gains control over executive branch spending decisions.
Citizens and Congress would know exactly how discretionary funds are spent. This makes government more accountable to the public. It reduces opportunities for wasteful or questionable spending.
Eliminating wasteful discretionary spending could reduce unnecessary government expenses. This might reduce the need for future tax increases or help balance budgets.
Congress would have more direct control over how executive agencies spend money. This balances power between branches of government and prevents executive overreach.
Stricter rules make it easier to predict government spending. This helps with long-term financial planning and budgeting certainty.
Government agencies need flexibility to respond to emergencies and unexpected situations. Strict controls might slow response times during crises. Agencies may struggle to address unforeseen problems quickly.
More rules and oversight processes require additional staff and paperwork. This could increase administrative costs and slow decision-making in government.
Congress might withhold funds from agencies based on political disagreements rather than merit. This could harm important programs and create partisan conflicts.
Some agencies use discretionary funds for necessary but unpredictable expenses. Strict limits might force agencies to operate less efficiently or abandon useful programs.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.