H.R. 10153House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat income earned by United States merchant mariners as foreign earned income.

Sponsored byBrian K. FitzpatrickR-PA-1Introduced Aug 27, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 27, 2026) — on Ways and Means.

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.

Discussion

13 comments

Sort

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea4d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

kbmontroseDemoNM-2voted Yea3d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea3d ago

Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay5d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea6d 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.

TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea4d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Nay4d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea3d 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. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea3d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do.

sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Nay3d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work.

AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea5d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail.

dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Nay6d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea6d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. The committee report would settle it either way.

Your position on H.R. 10153No positions yet