H.R. 10819House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To establish a United States-India Interparliamentary Group.

Sponsored byJames GallagherR-CA-1Introduced Oct 15, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 15, 2026) — on Foreign Affairs.

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

Sort

pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Nay2d 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. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

cedarprecinctDemoTX-33voted Nay2d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

greta.okaforDemoTX-36voted Yea10h 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.

MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Yea16h ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

greta.okaforDemoTX-36voted Yea4h ago

Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.

omar.vasquezDemoNY-5voted Nay21h 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.

gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Nay1d 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? Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

cedarprecinctDemoTX-33voted Nay1d ago

That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.

river_surveyorDemoTX-16voted Nay1d 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. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay2d 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. The committee report would settle it either way.

quiet_walkerDemoTX-35voted Nay3d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

granite_porchDemoKY-2voted Yea3d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay3d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

Your position on H.R. 10819No positions yet