H.R. 10233 (119th)Bill Overview

SMASH 2.0 Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Sep 2, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill (SMASH 2.0) reauthorizes and updates section 317S of the Public Health Service Act to support mosquito- and vector-borne disease surveillance and control. It provides $100 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030, allows the CDC to fund technical assistance and training, permits recipients to use up to 5% of awards for continuing education, explicitly allows consideration of innovative vector-control technologies in grants, and directs CDC and ASPR to plan for emergency stockpiling of nonperishable vector-control products within the Strategic National Stockpile.

Why people may split

Support for federal funding versus concern about ongoing federal spending

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly functions as a substantive reauthorization and modest expansion of an existing vector-control grant program: it provides multiyear funding authorization, names implementing officials, authorizes technical assistance and education, allows consideration of new technologies, and adds coordination for a Strategic National Stockpile of vector-control products.

This bill (SMASH 2.0) reauthorizes and updates section 317S of the Public Health Service Act to support mosquito- and vector-borne disease surveillance and control.

It provides $100 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030, allows the CDC to fund technical assistance and training, permits recipients to use up to 5% of awards for continuing education, explicitly allows consideration of innovative vector-control technologies in grants, and directs CDC and ASPR to plan for emergency stockpiling of nonperishable vector-control products within the Strategic National Stockpile.

Passage70/100

Technocratic reauthorization with modest fiscal impact and few ideological flashpoints, historically the type of bill that can clear both chambers.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly functions as a substantive reauthorization and modest expansion of an existing vector-control grant program: it provides multiyear funding authorization, names implementing officials, authorizes technical assistance and education, allows consideration of new technologies, and adds coordination for a Strategic National Stockpile of vector-control products. However, it leaves many operational specifics, definitional boundaries, oversight requirements, and safety or procurement safeguards to agency implementation.

Contention50/100

Support for federal funding versus concern about ongoing federal spending

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies · Manufacturers

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesProvides predictable federal funding for mosquito and vector surveillance and control programs.
  • Potential benefitSupports workforce development through technical assistance and up to 5% funding for continuing education.
  • Potential benefitEncourages adoption and piloting of innovative mosquito control technologies through grant considerations.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesAuthorizes $100 million annually, creating a federal cost of roughly $500 million over five years if appropriated.
  • ManufacturersExpanded stockpiling and procurement could favor specific manufacturers, raising concerns about market effects.
  • Potential burdenEncouraging novel technologies could introduce unproven methods with uncertain safety or environmental effects.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Support for federal funding versus concern about ongoing federal spending
Progressive90%

Generally supportive: the bill restores stable federal funding, invests in workforce training, and enables new technologies to address growing vector threats.

They will want stronger environmental and civil-society safeguards, equity in funding, and transparency about novel technologies and procurement.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Cautiously favorable: the bill is a pragmatic reauthorization that strengthens preparedness and workforce capacity.

They will seek measurable outcomes, fiscal accountability, and clear limits on federal roles versus state/local implementation.

Leans supportive
Conservative40%

Mixed to somewhat skeptical: supports protecting public health but worries about federal overreach, recurring spending, and open-ended language about novel technologies.

Prefers state control, tighter spending oversight, and limits on federal stockpiling authority.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood70/100

Technocratic reauthorization with modest fiscal impact and few ideological flashpoints, historically the type of bill that can clear both chambers.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether appropriators will fund full authorized amounts
  • Potential pushback over use of novel genetic or chemical control methods
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Support for federal funding versus concern about ongoing federal spending

Technocratic reauthorization with modest fiscal impact and few ideological flashpoints, historically the type of bill that can clear both c…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly functions as a substantive reauthorization and modest expansion of an existing vector-control grant program: it provides multiyear funding authorization, name…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis