VoteWire
Sign inStart voting
H.R. 10509House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To suspend the Presidential Proclamation relating to expanding foreign beef imports and establish a Beef Import and Domestic Supply Advisory Board to increase the domestic supply of beef and lower costs for consumers over the long term, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byGabe VasquezD-NM-2Introduced Sep 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 17, 2026) — on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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

12 comments

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

Sort
8
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea18d 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
birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Yea18d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea18d 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. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
harbor_machinistDemoNY-1418d ago
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
6
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea19d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
6
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Nay19d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
6
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay19d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
6
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Yea20d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
5
birch_ledgerDemoLA-220d ago
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
2
hollow_districtDemoCA-13voted Yea17d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
2
esme_watcherDemoCA-28voted Nay19d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
2
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea20d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
Your position on H.R. 10509No positions yet