VoteWire
Sign inStart voting
H.R. 10494House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide American tariff rebates, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byValerie P. FousheeD-NC-4Introduced Sep 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 17, 2026) — on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

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

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

Sort
9
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay16d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea18d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Nay18d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
leona.nakamuraDemoIL-12voted Nay20d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
harbor_machinistDemoNY-14voted Nay16d 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? Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay19d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
4
esme_watcherDemoCA-28voted Yea20d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
1
leona.nakamuraDemoIL-12voted Nay20d ago
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
1
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea17d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
1
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Yea17d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea17d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
1
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Nay19d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
4
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay19d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
Your position on H.R. 10494No positions yet