H.R. 10507House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To require a report on expanding the scope of jurisdiction under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in cases where a terrorist attack resulted in injury but no death.

Sponsored byDavid J. TaylorR-OH-2Introduced Sep 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 17, 2026) — on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

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

14 comments

Sort

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay18d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay18d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

arthur_readerDemoAZ-4voted Nay16d 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.

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay19d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. None of that is settled by the summary.

publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay20d 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? It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay17d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay17d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. None of that is settled by the summary.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea18d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. None of that is settled by the summary.

SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea17d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea20d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. None of that is settled by the summary.

wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay16d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Yea17d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Yea19d 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. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay16d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

Your position on H.R. 10507No positions yet