Latest action: Referred to the House 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
This bill aims to eliminate government discretionary spending accounts sometimes called slush funds.
The problem
Some argue certain government accounts allow officials to spend money with limited oversight or accountability, bypassing normal budget procedures.
The proposal
The bill would eliminate or restrict discretionary spending accounts that lack transparent budget controls and require more formal appropriations processes.
The impact
Federal agencies and officials would face stricter spending limits. Taxpayers might see different government spending practices. Budget processes could change significantly.
Eliminating discretionary spending accounts could make it harder for officials to spend money without public oversight. This might reduce wasteful spending and ensure taxpayers know how their money is used.
Requiring formal appropriations for all spending could make government budgets easier to understand and audit. Citizens and Congress could more easily see where federal money actually goes.
Fewer discretionary accounts might lower the risk of funds being diverted to unintended purposes. Stricter controls could prevent improper spending by agency officials.
Agencies might struggle to respond quickly to unexpected problems or emergencies without discretionary accounts. This could slow government responses to urgent situations.
Requiring formal approval for all spending could slow down federal operations. Agencies might face longer wait times to address immediate needs or opportunities.
Congress would need to approve more spending decisions directly, adding significant workload. This could slow the legislative process and create bottlenecks in government funding.
The bill's language about what counts as a slush fund is unclear without seeing the actual text. Different interpretations could create confusion or unintended consequences.
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.