A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sres/517

Last Updated: November 24, 2025

A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks.

SRES. 517, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 410-412 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The SRES 517 resolution. A quaint attempt by the Senate to feign fiscal responsibility. Let's cut through the rhetoric and examine the actual implications for my interests.

Firstly, the bill's focus on eliminating earmarks is a welcome development. Those pet projects often benefit entrenched special interest groups, rather than innovative disruptors like myself. By removing earmarks, we can redirect funds towards more efficient, market-driven initiatives – perhaps even those that align with my own business ventures.

Now, let's review the fiscal implications:

* The bill doesn't explicitly allocate new funding or propose significant budget reallocations. However, by eliminating earmarks, it could potentially free up billions of dollars for more strategic investments. * Notable programs and agencies receiving funds aren't directly impacted by this resolution, but the lack of earmarks might force them to become more agile and responsive to market demands – a positive development for my interests. * There are no notable increases or decreases from previous years, as this bill primarily focuses on process rather than funding levels.

The real prize lies in the policy provisions attached to this funding. By eliminating earmarks, we can:

* Reduce the influence of special interest groups and increase the power of market forces * Create opportunities for more efficient, privatized solutions to emerge * Potentially redirect funds towards initiatives that support my business interests

Fiscally speaking, this bill's impact is minimal in the short term. However, by reducing earmarks and promoting a more market-driven approach, we can create an environment conducive to growth and innovation – which ultimately benefits my bottom line.

As I always say, "The free market is the most efficient allocator of resources." This bill takes a small step towards embracing that principle. Now, if only they would privatize the entire appropriations process...

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.80
Section (2) reaffirms the previous ban on the use of earmarks, which could limit opportunities for private equity and hedge funds to benefit from government spending and investments.
−Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.80
The resolution's opposition to earmarks (Section 1) may reduce government spending on infrastructure projects, negatively impacting the construction and engineering industries.
−Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.70
Reduced government spending due to the ban on earmarks (Section 2) could lead to decreased funding for defense projects, affecting defense contractors.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$72,600
from 16 contributions
- ROWAN, MARC$9,900
- SINGER, PAUL E.$9,900
- ZELTER, JAMES C.$9,900
- KLEINMAN, SCOTT$9,900
- NORD, MATT$9,900
Construction & Engineering$7,000
from 3 contributions
- KIEWIT, SCOTT$6,700
- BECHTEL, BRUCE$300
Defense Contractors$1,680
from 32 contributions
- WITZKY, CHRISTOPHER$500
- DOAN, DAVID MR.$455
- DOAN, DAVID$315
- COCKS, DAN$250
- STUDER, JOHN A. MR.$160

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 410-412AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOE section emphasize reducing federal spending and eliminating wasteful or market-distorting programs; the bill's opposition to earmarks aligns with the policy goal of cutting DOE's applied energy subsidies and focusing on core responsibilities."

Key themes:fiscal responsibilityreducing government spendingeliminating wasteful subsidieslimiting earmarkspromoting market-based solutions

— 378 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget The FY 2023 budget request for FECM was approximately $893.2 million.40 FECM’s requested appropriation can be compared to the more than $4.0 billion requested for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.41 The disparity in funding demonstrates how DOE’s research activities and substantial portions of its organizational structure are now focused entirely on the reduction of CO2 emissions rather than energy access or energy security. OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EERE) Mission/Overview The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy traces its roots to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975,42 but most of its programs today are rooted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.43 Under the Biden Administration, EERE’s mission is “to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and solutions to equitably transition America to net- zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050” and “ensure [that] the clean energy economy benefits all Americans.”44 The office is made up of three “pillars”: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable transportation. Needed Reforms l End the focus on climate change and green subsidies. Under the Biden Administration, EERE is a conduit for taxpayer dollars to fund progressive policies, including decarbonization of the economy and renewable resources. EERE has focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the exclusion of other statutorily defined requirements such as energy security and cost. For example, EERE’s five programmatic priorities during the Biden Administration are all focused on decarbonization of the electricity sector, the industrial sector, transportation, buildings, and the agricultural sector.45 l Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended, the agency is required to set and periodically tighten energy and/or water efficiency standards for nearly all kinds of commercial and household appliances, including air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, light bulbs, and showerheads. Current law and regulations reduce consumer choice, drive up costs for consumer appliances, and emphasize energy efficiency to the exclusion of other important factors such as cycle time and reparability. — 379 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies l Eliminate EERE. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all of DOE’s applied energy programs, including those in EERE (with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Reduce EERE funding. If EERE cannot be eliminated, then the Administration should engage with Congress and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on EERE’s budget. EERE’s budget was around $1.5 billion a year when the advances were made that led to dramatic cost decreases in wind, solar, and battery technology. In recent years, Congress has appropriated many billions of dollars in excess of EERE’s normal budget (DOE requested more than $4.0 billion for FY 2023).46 It should rescind these excess monies so that DOE is not required to spend them. If funding cannot be reduced, then it should be reallocated to more fundamental research and less toward commercialization and deployment. l Focus on fundamental science and research. If EERE cannot be eliminated, then the Administration should focus on broader and more fundamental energy research, consistent with law. The Biden Administration is too focused on deploying technologies instead of relying on the private sector. Moreover, under the Biden Administration, EERE is too focused on decarbonization and not at all on the cost of energy. l Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. The next Administration should work with Congress to modify or repeal the law mandating energy efficiency standards. Before (or in lieu of) repealing the law, there are steps the agency can take to refocus on the consumer by giving full force to the provisions already in the law that serve to limit regulatory overreach and protect against excessively stringent standards. For example, the Trump DOE prioritized the relatively few appliance regulations that were likely to save consumers the most energy and refrained from those whose modest benefits are unlikely to justify the costs. It also took steps to ensure that any new standards do not compromise product quality or eliminate any features. These and other consumer protections are in the statute but have often been ignored.

Department of Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 326-328AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 proposal aim to curb inappropriate or discretionary spending and strengthen congressional control over federal funds, though the bill addresses earmarks broadly while the policy focuses specifically on USDA's CCC authority."

Key themes:fiscal responsibilitycongressional oversightlimiting executive discretionreducing wasteful spending

— 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 392-394AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 Education section emphasize reducing federal spending and increasing efficiency, though the bill addresses earmarks broadly while Project 2025 proposes specific Education department cuts and reforms."

Key themes:fiscal responsibilitybudget cutsreducing wasteeliminating duplicative programstrimming nonessential employees

— 359 — Department of Education l The reissuing of the report on school safety from 2018 with updated information, l The release of a report to Congress on how to consolidate the department and trim nonessential employees, l A report on the negative influence of action civics on students’ understanding of history and civics and their disposition toward the United States, l An update of the Coleman report to show the impact of family structure on student achievement, l A full accounting of CARES Act education expenditures, and l A report on how many dollars make their way to the classroom in every federal education grant and program. Pursue Antitrust Against Accreditors l The President should issue an executive order pursuing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association (ABA). NEW POLICIES/REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR THE WHITE HOUSE The department must coordinate any rulemaking with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOJ, and other agencies that share responsibility with the department in the administration or enforcement of stat- ute, such as Titles VI and IX. Moreover, regarding regulations arising under civil rights laws administered by the department, Executive Order 12550 requires the Attorney General to approve final regulations; the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must approve notices of proposed rulemaking. Organizational Issues Historical Budget Information. Congressional appropriations for the U.S. Department of Education have risen from $14 billion in 1980 to $95.5 billion in 2021, an astounding increase, especially in light of the lack of improvements in student outcomes. Recommend Budget Cuts, Shifts, and Augmentations, If Any. Transferring most of the programs at the U.S. Department of Education to other agencies and eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs would yield significant taxpayer — 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on opposing earmarks and promoting general fiscal responsibility, while the Project 2025 education policy outlines specific reforms such as Title I changes, micro‑education savings accounts, and school choice. Both share a theme of reducing federal spending and limiting federal control, but the bill does not address the education‑specific objectives of the policy."

Key themes:federal spending reductionfiscal responsibilityopposition to earmarkslimited federal control

— 350 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise would give the families of children with special needs approximately $1,800 per child to help meet a child’s unique learning needs. l Members of Congress and the White House should consider a similar update to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I is the largest portion of federal taxpayer spending under this federal education law, and the section provides additional taxpayer resources to schools or groups of schools in lower income areas. Federal taxpayers committed $16.3 billion to Title I in FY 2019, spending that is dedicated to students in low-income areas of the U.S. Per student, this spending amounts to more than $1,400 for a child in a large city and approximately $1,300 for a student in a remote, rural area.19 Research finds, though, that this enormous investment has not produced positive results for children in need. The achievement gap between children from the highest and lowest income deciles has not improved over the past 50 years. And recent, dismal outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed declines for all students, with math scores registering declines for the first time in history. l Initially, the responsibilities for administering and overseeing Title I should be moved to HHS, along with IDEA. l Students attending schools that receive Title I spending should also have access to micro-education savings accounts that allow families to choose how and where their children learn according to their needs. l Parents should be allowed to use their child’s Title I resources to help pay for private learning options including tutoring services and curricular materials. l Over a 10-year period, the federal spending should be phased out and states should assume decision-making control over how to provide a quality education to children from low-income families. Additional School Choice Options House Republicans included school choice in their “Commitment to America” agenda. l Though actions by state lawmakers are essential and any federal policies should be strictly designed so they do not conflict with state activities, Congress could consider school choice legislation such — 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by

Federal Communications Commission

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on opposing congressional earmarks and promoting fiscal responsibility, whereas the Project 2025 FCC section deals with Big Tech regulation, Section 230 reform, and universal service fund contributions; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites. — 850 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It should be noted at this point that the views expressed here are not shared uniformly by all conservatives. There are some, including contributors to this chapter, who do not think that the FCC or Congress should act in a way that regulates the content-moderation decisions of private platforms. One of the main arguments that this group offers is that doing so would intrude— unlawfully in their view—on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms. l Require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share. Big Tech has avoided accountability in several additional ways as well. One of them concerns the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund. This initiative provides the support necessary to subsidize the agency’s affordable Internet and rural connectivity programs. The FCC obtains this funding through a line-item charge that carriers add to consumers’ monthly bills for traditional telecommunications service. While Big Tech derives tremendous value from the federal government’s universal service investments—using those federally supported networks to deliver their products and realize significant profits—these large corporations have avoided paying a fair share into the program. On top of that, the FCC’s current funding mechanism has been on an unsustainable path.21 By requiring traditional telephone customers to contribute to a fund that is being used increasingly to support broadband networks, the FCC’s current approach is the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways. To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount. Conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing that the FCC should expand the USF contribution base. Instead, some argue that Congress should revisit the program’s entire funding structure and determine whether to continue subsidizing the provision of service. Future funding decisions, the argument goes, should be made by Congress through the normal appropriation process through which the USF program can compete for funding with other national initiatives. These decisions should be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government’s existing broadband initiatives in light of both technological advances and the recent influx of billions of dollars in new appropriations that can be used to support efforts to end the digital divide. Protecting America’s National Security. During the Trump Administra- tion, the FCC ushered in a new and appropriately strong approach to the national

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Scott, Rick

A bill to prohibit Big Cypress National Preserve from being designated as wilderness or as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes.

119/s/446

Myakka Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025

119/s/2270

SHARKED Act of 2025

119/s/2314

Back to All Bills

A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks.