VoteWire
Sign inStart voting
S. 4395Senate bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateFinance and Financial Sector

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2026

Sponsored byDavid McCormickR-PAIntroduced Apr 27, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 5, 2026) — Held at the desk.

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

Who lobbied on this

6 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

3 comments

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

Sort
9
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea14d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
esme_watcherDemoCA-28voted Yea14d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The committee report would settle it either way.
2
birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Nay14d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
Your position on S. 4395No positions yet