H.R. 10176House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To prohibit Chinese seafood products in congressional dining facilities, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byChristopher H. SmithR-NJ-4Introduced Aug 27, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 27, 2026) — on House Administration.

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

8 comments

Sort

tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea6d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. None of that is settled by the summary.

sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Yea7d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

b_haverfordDemoLA-66d ago

You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.

nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Nay5d ago

Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea7d 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.

imogen.ferreiraDemoMA-7voted Yea5d ago

Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay4d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay7d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

Your position on H.R. 10176No positions yet