PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gallagher, James [R-CA-1] · R–CA
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 Transportation and Infrastructure.
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: Aug 12, 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.10022 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.10022 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.10022 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.10022 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 · 2026-08-03 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 proposed CLUSTER Act would add coordinated efforts to protect groups of private homes from hazards to a provision of federal disaster relief law. It calls this approach “community hardening or cluster hardening.” The existing provision is not reproduced, which limits what can be concluded about how this addition would operate.
This Act may be cited as the Community-Level Upgrades for Safer, Threat-Resistant Homes Act or the CLUSTER Act.
Section 404(f) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(f)) is amended—
(15) community hardening or cluster hardening, including coordinated mitigation across private residential structures.
Section 2 would add a new paragraph (15) to section 404(f) of the Stafford Act. It would expressly include coordinated hazard-reduction efforts across private residential buildings within “community hardening or cluster hardening.” The word “including” leaves the proposed category broader than that example.
Section 404(f) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(f)) is amended—
(3) by adding at the end the following: (15) community hardening or cluster hardening, including coordinated mitigation across private residential structures.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated August 12, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on August 3, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-12T11:28:17Z. 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. 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 does not establish absence in 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 treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and the statutory context supplied.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 12, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI