PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10479 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10479 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10479 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10479 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Quantum Benchmark Act would require the Defense Department to establish rules for checking quantum computing systems before developing or acquiring them. Once the policy is issued, Defense Department components could develop or acquire only systems that pass the required checks, unless the Secretary of Defense grants an exception for a specific system.
This Act may be cited as the Quantum Benchmark Act.
establish a process for validating and verifying quantum computing systems before such systems are developed or acquired by the Department
Following issuance of the policy under subsection (a), a quantum computing system may not be developed or acquired by an element of the Department of Defense unless the system has been validated and verified in accordance with such policy.
The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation under paragraph (1), on a case by case basis, with respect to a specific quantum computing system.
The Secretary of Defense would have to issue the policy within 180 days after enactment and define what counts as a quantum computing system for that policy.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall issue a policy to guide the development and acquisition of quantum computing systems for the Department of Defense.
Under the policy, the Secretary shall— (1) establish a definition of quantum computing system for purposes of the policy
The policy would have to establish a process for validating and verifying systems—checking them before the Department develops or acquires them. Development and acquisition would also have to be consistent with, and informed by, the findings and processes of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative or its successor.
(2) establish a process for validating and verifying quantum computing systems before such systems are developed or acquired by the Department; and (3) ensure that the development and acquisition of such systems is consistent with and informed by the findings and processes of the Quantum Benchmarking Initiative of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or any successor initiative).
The restriction would begin when the policy is issued. From that point, every Defense Department component would be prohibited from developing or acquiring a quantum computing system without validation and verification under the policy, subject to the Secretary’s waiver authority.
Following issuance of the policy under subsection (a), a quantum computing system may not be developed or acquired by an element of the Department of Defense unless the system has been validated and verified in accordance with such policy.
The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation under paragraph (1), on a case by case basis, with respect to a specific quantum computing system.
The Secretary could grant an exception for an individual system, considered case by case. Within 15 days after granting an exception, the Secretary would have to send the congressional defense committees written notice and a justification.
The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation under paragraph (1), on a case by case basis, with respect to a specific quantum computing system. In the event the Secretary issues such a waiver, the Secretary shall provide to the congressional defense committees, not later than 15 days after date on which the waiver was issued— (A) written notice of such waiver; and (B) the Secretary’s justification for the waiver.
The bill would use the existing definition of “congressional defense committees” in title 10 of the United States Code to identify the committees receiving waiver notices.
In this section, the term congressional defense committees has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on September 17, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T20:53:51Z. 2026-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2026-09-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The general authority to consider individual waivers does not itself designate a favored beneficiary. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version, not other versions, accompanying materials, or future implementation.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI