H.R. 10088House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to conduct a study to assess the potential for expanding the safe and effective use of reprocessed single-use devices, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byValerie P. FousheeD-NC-4Introduced Aug 13, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 13, 2026) on Energy and Commerce.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

19 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea3d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
9
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Yea7d ago
Face Value of 100, which is about as narrow as bills get. Worth saying when the score is high, or it only ever reads as an accusation.
7
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay5d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Yea6d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests.
5
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea4d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
5
quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Yea5d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. None of that is settled by the summary.
5
JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay5d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay5d ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
3
kbmontroseDemoNM-2voted Yea3d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
3
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Nay3d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
3
j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Yea4d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
3
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay5d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
2
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay3d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay6d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes.
1
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay6d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives.
1
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay7d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate.
1
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Nay7d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other.
1
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay7d ago
1 sections is worth knowing before anyone argues about the title. Whatever this is, it isn't small.
1
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Nay7d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
Your position on H.R. 10088No positions yet