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
Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn [R-MP-At Large] · R–MP
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 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.10341 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.10341 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.10341 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.10341 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.
The proposal would change the Guam and Northern Mariana Islands program for entry without a visa. It would require eligibility for six named countries, subject to paragraph (4) and the bill’s revised suspension rules. It would replace paragraph (5) with requirements for suspending admissions, including a written determination, consultation, an economic assessment, advance congressional notice, an emergency procedure, and reviews of continuing suspensions.
2. Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program (a) In general Section 212(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(l)) is amended— (1) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall include the Republic of India, Republic of the Philippines, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Republic of Indonesia, and Mongolia among the countries eligible under this subsection, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), unless the Secretary determines that the inclusion of any such country would meet the criteria for suspension described under paragraph (5)(A).
the Secretary of Homeland Security may suspend the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection only upon a written determination by the Secretary, based on specific and articulable facts
consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Governor of Guam, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
prepare an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable economic and fiscal effects of the proposed suspension on Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, including effects on visitor arrivals, air service, employment, business activity, and government revenues.
Not later than 60 days before a suspension under this subsection takes effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
the Secretary of Homeland Security may suspend the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection immediately if the Secretary determines in writing that an imminent and substantial threat to national security or public safety requires immediate action.
Not later than 180 days after a suspension takes effect, and annually thereafter for as long as the suspension remains in effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review the conditions supporting the suspension and determine whether the suspension remains necessary.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Marianas Tourism Advancement Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Marianas Tourism Advancement Act of 2026.
Outside the emergency procedure, the Secretary could suspend admissions from a country only through a written determination supported by specific and articulable facts. Continued admissions would have to have caused, or be substantially likely to cause, an unacceptable rate of unlawful presence in either territory, unlawful entry elsewhere in the United States, an unacceptable number of applications for asylum or withholding of removal, or a substantial threat to the welfare, safety, security, or law enforcement interests of either territory or the United States.
(A) Required determination Subject to the requirements under subparagraphs (B) and (C), the Secretary of Homeland Security may suspend the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection only upon a written determination by the Secretary, based on specific and articulable facts, that the continued admission of nationals of that country has resulted in, or presents a substantial likelihood of resulting in— (i) an unacceptable rate of unlawful presence in Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; (ii) unlawful entry into another part of the United States; (iii) an unacceptable number of applications for asylum or withholding of removal; or (iv) a substantial threat to the welfare, safety, security, or law enforcement interests of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States.
(D) Emergency suspension Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)
For a nonemergency suspension, the Secretary would have to consult the Interior, State, and Commerce secretaries and both territorial governors after making the written determination and before suspending admissions.
After the written determination under subparagraph (A) and prior to the suspension of the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall— (i) consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Governor of Guam, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Before a nonemergency suspension, the Secretary would have to consider whether additional safeguards could adequately address the concerns without stopping admissions. Options include bonding requirements, limits on length of stay, enhanced information sharing, and other country-specific safeguards. This provision requires considering those options; it does not require adopting a particular option.
After the written determination under subparagraph (A) and prior to the suspension of the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
(ii) consider whether additional conditions, including bonding requirements, limits on length of stay, enhanced information sharing, or other country-specific safeguards, would adequately address the identified concerns without suspension
The Secretary would have to assess a proposed nonemergency suspension’s reasonably foreseeable effects on both territories’ economies and public finances, including visitors, air service, jobs, business activity, and government revenue. This is an assessment requirement, not evidence that particular effects would occur.
(iii) prepare an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable economic and fiscal effects of the proposed suspension on Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, including effects on visitor arrivals, air service, employment, business activity, and government revenues.
At least 60 days before a nonemergency suspension took effect, the Secretary would have to send four congressional committees the written determination, summaries of consultations and considered safeguards, and the economic and fiscal assessment.
(C) Notice to Congress Not later than 60 days before a suspension under this subsection takes effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives— (i) the written determination required under subparagraph (A); (ii) a summary of the consultations conducted under subparagraph (B)(i); (iii) a summary of the additional conditions or safeguards considered under subparagraph (B)(ii); and (iv) the economic and fiscal assessment required under subparagraph (B)(iii).
The Secretary could suspend admissions immediately upon a written determination that an imminent and substantial national security or public safety threat required immediate action. That emergency suspension would expire after 60 days unless the Secretary completed the ordinary determination, consultation, consideration of safeguards, assessment, and congressional notice requirements.
(D) Emergency suspension Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C), the Secretary of Homeland Security may suspend the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection immediately if the Secretary determines in writing that an imminent and substantial threat to national security or public safety requires immediate action. An emergency suspension under this subparagraph shall expire after 60 days unless the Secretary completes the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C).
The Secretary would have to review a suspension within 180 days after it took effect and annually thereafter while it continued. The Secretary would have to end it if its supporting conditions disappeared or could be adequately addressed through additional conditions or safeguards.
(E) Review of suspension Not later than 180 days after a suspension takes effect, and annually thereafter for as long as the suspension remains in effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review the conditions supporting the suspension and determine whether the suspension remains necessary. The Secretary shall terminate the suspension if the conditions supporting it no longer exist or can be adequately addressed through additional conditions or safeguards.
The proposal would require the Secretary to include India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Mongolia as eligible countries notwithstanding other law. Eligibility would remain subject to paragraph (4) and the bill’s revised paragraph (5), and the Secretary could exclude a listed country upon determining that its inclusion would meet the proposed suspension criteria. Paragraph (4) is not reproduced in the supplied text, so its conditions cannot be described from this source.
(7) Certain countries Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall include the Republic of India, Republic of the Philippines, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Republic of Indonesia, and Mongolia among the countries eligible under this subsection, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), unless the Secretary determines that the inclusion of any such country would meet the criteria for suspension described under paragraph (5)(A).
The Secretary would have to issue regulations necessary to make the listed countries eligible under the program.
The Secretary shall promulgate regulations necessary to ensure such countries are eligible under this subsection.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, at 15:58:04 UTC, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 10, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T15:58:04Z. 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 appropriations policy rider was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence 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 after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark disclosures and reports were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
A narrowly specified eligibility preference is identified below. Classification does not assess whether the treatment is justified.
India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Mongolia would receive an express directive requiring country eligibility notwithstanding other law. This country-specific treatment concerns access for their nationals to the territorial visa waiver program and is directly related to the bill’s main policy. It remains subject to paragraph (4) and the bill’s revised paragraph (5), including an exception when inclusion would meet the suspension criteria. The directive addresses country eligibility rather than guaranteeing individual admission; the supplied text does not establish whether any listed country already participates.
2. Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program
(7) Certain countries Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall include the Republic of India, Republic of the Philippines, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Republic of Indonesia, and Mongolia among the countries eligible under this subsection, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), unless the Secretary determines that the inclusion of any such country would meet the criteria for suspension described under paragraph (5)(A).
the Secretary of Homeland Security may suspend the admission of nationals of a country under this subsection
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI