H.R. 10774House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the taking, importation, exportation, and breeding of certain cetaceans for public display, and for other purposes.

Sponsored bySuzan K. DelBeneD-WA-1Introduced Oct 9, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 9, 2026) — on Natural Resources, 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

21 comments

Sort

pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Nay4d ago

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

hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Yea5d 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 rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

asha.ferreiraDemoMN-6voted Yea7d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay6d 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. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

yara.novakDemoVT-ALvoted Nay9d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

pine_machinistDemoAZ-5voted Nay9d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Yea7d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

frontledgerDemoOH-15voted Nay4d 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.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-24d ago

The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.

front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea7d ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

stilldinerDemoOH-9voted Yea8d 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.

j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Yea8d 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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Yea7d 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. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Yea9d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

abel_commuterDemoNY-1voted Nay5d 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.

hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Yea5d ago

"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?

cedarprecinctDemoTX-33voted Nay8d 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. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

river_surveyorDemoTX-16voted Nay8d ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

river_surveyorDemoTX-16voted Nay8d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. None of that is settled by the summary.

grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay6d 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. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay6d ago

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

Your position on H.R. 107740% Yea · 1 VoteWire user