S. 5207Senate bill · 119th CongressIn committeeHealth

RCORP Authorization Act

Sponsored byShelley Moore CapitoR-WVIntroduced Aug 3, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 3, 2026) Read twice and on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

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

9 comments

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

Sort
24
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea17d ago
Yes from me. The cost looks modest relative to what we already spend on the same problem indirectly.
20
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea27d ago
Has this been introduced in a previous Congress? Feels familiar, and if it died before, I'd like to know why.
9
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted 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.
4
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Nay23d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
-1
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay23d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
3
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea22d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
8
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea21d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
8
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay22d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
8
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Nay24d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
Your position on S. 520754% Yea · 24 VoteWire users