PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29] · D–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 Energy and Commerce.
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 11, 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.10285 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.10285 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.10285 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.10285 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 · 2026-09-03 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 bill would require a report to Congress evaluating federal disaster-response requirements for mobile wireless providers. The review would examine how well those requirements work overall and how they worked during California’s January 2025 wildfires. It would identify failures in service coverage, roaming between providers’ networks, or provider coordination and make recommendations.
the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative of the Federal Communications Commission
(1) An analysis of the overall effectiveness of the Initiative. (2) An analysis of the effectiveness of the Initiative with respect to the wildfires in California during January 2025. (3) An identification of any failures in coverage, roaming, or provider coordination under the Initiative. (4) Recommendations with respect to the Initiative.
requirements set forth in section 4.17 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, that apply to facilities-based mobile wireless providers with respect to certain emergency or disaster situations.
The Comptroller General would have to submit the report to Congress within 180 days after enactment. The deadline would depend on enactment, rather than the bill’s introduction date.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative of the Federal Communications Commission
The report would have to assess the initiative’s effectiveness both overall and specifically in connection with California’s January 2025 wildfires.
(1) An analysis of the overall effectiveness of the Initiative. (2) An analysis of the effectiveness of the Initiative with respect to the wildfires in California during January 2025.
The report would have to identify any failures in coverage, roaming, or coordination among providers under the initiative and provide recommendations. This is a requirement to investigate possible failures, not a finding that failures occurred.
(3) An identification of any failures in coverage, roaming, or provider coordination under the Initiative. (4) Recommendations with respect to the Initiative.
The proposed review covers the Federal Communications Commission’s requirements in section 4.17 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The bill describes these as requirements applying to mobile wireless providers with their own network facilities in certain emergencies or disasters.
the term Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative means the requirements set forth in section 4.17 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, that apply to facilities-based mobile wireless providers with respect to certain emergency or disaster situations.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 3, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-11T15:51:29Z. 2026-09-03: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-03. 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 was identified in 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 in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI