H.R. 9981House bill · 119th CongressIn committeeHealth

Foodborne Illness Rapid Response Act

Sponsored byJosh GottheimerD-NJ-5Introduced Jul 30, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 30, 2026) on Energy and Commerce.

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.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

7 comments

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

Sort
17
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Nay26d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
10
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea25d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
2
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Nay24d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
5
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay23d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
10
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Yea22d ago
Yes from me. The cost looks modest relative to what we already spend on the same problem indirectly.
1
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Yea18d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
2
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Nay24d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
Your position on H.R. 998155% Yea · 20 VoteWire users