H.R. 10778House bill · 119th CongressIn committee
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a credit to incentivize the use of certain low-emission anesthetic gases by health care facilities, and for other purposes.
Latest action (Oct 9, 2026) — on Ways and Means.
What it does
not written yetThe 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
25 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
9
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
9
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.
9
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
8
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.
8
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.
7
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.
7
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
6
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.
6
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.
5
The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.
5
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
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work.
4
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
4
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. None of that is settled by the summary.
3
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
3
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. None of that is settled by the summary.
3
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The committee report would settle it either way.
2
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
2
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
2
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
2
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong.
2
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
Your position on H.R. 107780% Yea · 1 VoteWire user