H.R. 10773House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent governmental interference in the operation of private and religious schools.

Sponsored byJeff CrankR-CO-5Introduced Oct 9, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 9, 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

16 comments

Sort

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay4d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted 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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

asha.ferreiraDemoMN-6voted Yea6d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

sylvie_civicDemoFL-116d ago

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

TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay7d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay8d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay5d ago

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

TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay6d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The committee report would settle it either way.

JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted 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. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

river_surveyorDemoTX-16voted Nay8d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay8d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

greta_walkerDemoIN-8voted Yea4d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay9d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The committee report would settle it either way.

nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Nay6d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

nadia_librarianDemoNY-15voted Nay9d 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. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

dev.oduyaDemoVI-ALvoted Nay9d 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.

Your position on H.R. 10773No positions yet