PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7] · R–NJ
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 the Judiciary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 23, 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.10339 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.10339 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.10339 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.10339 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 · 2026-09-10 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.
This proposal would set the date for deciding whether a person or entity qualifies as an agency or instrumentality of a terrorist party for judgment collection. It would affect holders of final court judgments seeking to collect through property seizure or attachment, which holds property for collection. The relevant date would be when the judgment holder starts that collection action.
The status of a person or an entity as an agency or instrumentality of a terrorist party shall be determined as of the date on which the final judgment holder commences an action for execution or attachment in aid of execution.
Section 2 would amend section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. It would label the existing text “Satisfaction of judgments” and add a mandatory rule measuring agency or instrumentality status as of the start of the judgment holder’s collection action.
Section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note(a)) is amended— (1) by striking Notwithstanding and inserting the following: (1) Satisfaction of judgments Notwithstanding
The status of a person or an entity as an agency or instrumentality of a terrorist party shall be determined as of the date on which the final judgment holder commences an action for execution or attachment in aid of execution.
The supplied action snapshot, updated September 23, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 10, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-23T13:36:43Z. 2026-09-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-10: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-10. 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 policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
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 does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Coverage of the policy’s intended beneficiaries alone does not establish a targeted benefit. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 23, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI