PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ
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 Foreign Affairs.
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: Oct 16, 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.10723 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.10723 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.10723 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.10723 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 · 2026-10-05 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 bill would allow the Secretary of State, working with the Attorney General, to negotiate an agreement with Mexico for coordinating responses to serious crimes against United States citizens in Mexico. The proposed agreement would aim to improve communication and investigations. Negotiating and establishing it would be optional, but the bill would require congressional reports on progress and, if an agreement is established, its implementation.
(d) Establishment In order to carry out the policy under subsection (b), the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, may engage with the Government of Mexico to negotiate and establish a bilateral rapid response protocol for serious crimes committed against United States citizens in Mexico.
(e) Purpose The Protocol is intended to facilitate timely coordination between United States and Mexican authorities in responding to and investigating serious crimes committed against United States citizens in Mexico.
(g) Progress report Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the Protocol is established, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
(h) Implementation report Not later than 180 days after the establishment of the Protocol, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
The bill would be named the Nicholas Douglas Quets United States-Mexico Rapid Response for Victims of Crime Act. Its findings describe delays or gaps in coordination as a possible obstacle to investigations and justice for victims and their families; this is the bill's stated rationale.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Nicholas Douglas Quets United States-Mexico Rapid Response for Victims of Crime Act.
(6) In certain cases involving serious crimes, including homicide, kidnapping, and organized criminal violence, delays or gaps in coordination between authorities may hinder investigations and the delivery of justice for victims and their families.
The bill would declare United States policy to coordinate with Mexico on responses to serious crimes involving United States citizens there. It adopts the definition of “serious crimes” from an existing federal statute, whose definition is not reproduced in the supplied text.
(b) Statement of policy It is the policy of the United States to collaborate in bilateral rapid response to ensure efficient communication and coordination between United States and Mexican authorities when responding to serious crimes involving United States citizens in Mexico.
(3) Serious crimes The term serious crimes has the meaning given the term in section 11103(14) of title 34, United States Code.
The agreement could include prompt notification of authorities, secure communication between law enforcement and diplomatic officials, and designated agency contacts to coordinate responses. These would be optional negotiating elements, rather than required terms.
(f) Recommended elements In negotiating the Protocol, the Secretary of State may include procedures that provide— (1) mechanisms for the prompt notification of relevant United States and Mexican authorities when a serious crime involving a United States citizen occurs; (2) secure and reliable communication channels between designated law enforcement and diplomatic authorities in both countries;
(7) the designation of appropriate points of contact within relevant United States and Mexican agencies responsible for coordinating responses to incidents covered by the Protocol;
Optional agreement terms could address securing crime scenes, protecting physical evidence, and preserving and documenting evidence to support possible prosecutions in either country.
(f) Recommended elements In negotiating the Protocol, the Secretary of State may include procedures that provide—
(3) procedures to ensure the timely securing of crime scenes and the protection of relevant physical evidence; (4) agreed-upon standards and procedures for preserving and documenting evidence in a manner that supports potential prosecutions in either country's jurisdiction;
The agreement could provide for timely sharing of investigative leads, intelligence, and forensic information—information from scientific examination of evidence—consistent with each country's laws. It could also include privacy and civil liberties safeguards for shared information.
(f) Recommended elements In negotiating the Protocol, the Secretary of State may include procedures that provide—
(5) procedures to facilitate the timely sharing of investigative leads, intelligence, and forensic information between United States and Mexican authorities, consistent with the laws of each country;
(9) appropriate substantive and procedural safeguards for the protection of privacy and civil liberties with respect to information shared pursuant to the Protocol;
The agreement could designate Mexican government contacts and procedures for extradition requests: requests to formally transfer a person between countries for criminal proceedings. It could also provide for timely coordination of extradition to the United States.
(f) Recommended elements In negotiating the Protocol, the Secretary of State may include procedures that provide—
(6) the designation of appropriate points of contact within the Government of Mexico and procedures to facilitate requests for international extradition and timely coordination for extradition to United States;
The agreement could designate a United States government contact to update victims or their families about assistance and investigative developments. Updates would be qualified by the need to protect ongoing investigations, prosecutions, or other law enforcement proceedings. The agreement could also coordinate victim and family support between United States consular officials and Mexican authorities.
(f) Recommended elements In negotiating the Protocol, the Secretary of State may include procedures that provide—
(8) the designation of a point of contact within the United States Government responsible for communicating with the victim or the victim’s family and providing timely updates regarding available assistance and investigative developments, as appropriate and consistent with the need to protect the integrity of any ongoing investigation, prosecution, or other law enforcement proceeding;
(10) procedures for coordination between United States consular officials and Mexican authorities regarding support for victims and their families;
The agreement could include opportunities for joint training, planning, or exercises intended to support its implementation.
(f) Recommended elements In negotiating the Protocol, the Secretary of State may include procedures that provide—
(11) opportunities for joint training, planning, or exercises to ensure effective implementation of the Protocol.
The Secretary of State would have to report within 180 days after enactment and annually thereafter until the agreement is established. Reports would cover negotiation progress, Mexican government cooperation concerning crimes against United States citizens in Mexico, and any legislative or diplomatic steps the Secretary considers useful for improving coordination and accountability.
(g) Progress report Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the Protocol is established, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes— (1) the progress made toward negotiating the Protocol; (2) the status of cooperation with the Government of Mexico relating to crimes against United States citizens while they are in Mexico; and (3) any additional legislative or diplomatic steps the Secretary determines would improve coordination and accountability in such cases.
If the agreement is established, the Secretary of State would have to report on implementation within 180 days and annually thereafter, with no end date specified for those reports. They would describe implementation, actions by both countries, the extent of any improved coordination, and recommendations for improvement.
(h) Implementation report Not later than 180 days after the establishment of the Protocol, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes— (1) the status of the implementation of such Protocol; (2) actions taken by United States and Mexican authorities under the Protocol; (3) the extent to which the Protocol has improved coordination in covered cases; and (4) any recommendations for improving the Protocol.
Both types of reports would go to the Senate Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees and the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees.
(1) Appropriate congressional committees The term appropriate congressional committees means— (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; (B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; (C) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and (D) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
(g) Progress report Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the Protocol is established, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
(h) Implementation report Not later than 180 days after the establishment of the Protocol, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
The bill would preserve each country's sovereign authority. It would not require Mexico to adopt investigative procedures inconsistent with Mexican law, change existing powers of United States law enforcement or consular officials, or limit individual rights and protections under United States law or the Constitution.
(i) Rules of construction Nothing in this section may be construed— (1) to limit the sovereignty of the United States or of Mexico; (2) to require the Government of Mexico to adopt investigative procedures inconsistent with existing Mexican law; (3) to alter the existing authorities of United States law enforcement or consular officials; or (4) to limit or otherwise affect any right or protection afforded to an individual under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on October 5, 2026. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T17:41:25Z. 2026-10-05: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2026-10-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-05. 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 provision unrelated to the bill's main subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of riders 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 in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status or the absence of earmarks in other 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 treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Coverage of the policy's intended beneficiaries alone does not qualify. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI