H.R. 10092House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To prohibit National Laboratories from admitting certain foreign nationals, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byPat HarriganR-NC-10Introduced Aug 13, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 13, 2026) — on Science, Space, and Technology.

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

21 comments

Sort

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea4d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. None of that is settled by the summary.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay5d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Yea5d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Nay7d 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.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay3d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea6d 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.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay4d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Yea5d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay5d ago

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

elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay6d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse.

lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay7d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes.

elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay4d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay4d ago

Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.

b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay4d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The committee report would settle it either way.

clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Yea5d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests.

r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea6d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation.

elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay6d ago

"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?

publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay6d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it.

tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Yea3d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-123d ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea7d 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?

Your position on H.R. 10092100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user