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. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2] · R–NY
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.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 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.10361 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.10361 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.10361 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.10361 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 · 2026-09-14 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 require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reimburse eligible public employee retirement systems for costs tied to accidental disability retirements and accidental deaths resulting from World Trade Center rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations after the September 11 attacks. It would authorize $5.9134 billion in federal funding for fiscal year 2027, but that authorization would not itself provide the money.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall reimburse each eligible public employee retirement system for costs relating to accidental disability retirements and accidental deaths resulting from the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out this section $5,913,400,000 for fiscal year 2027.
FEMA's Administrator would be required to reimburse every eligible retirement system for the specified costs. Those costs must relate to accidental disability retirements or accidental deaths resulting from the World Trade Center response operations.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall reimburse each eligible public employee retirement system for costs relating to accidental disability retirements and accidental deaths resulting from the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
A public employee retirement system would qualify if it has a member who participated in rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
the term eligible public employee retirement system means a public employee retirement system that contains a member who participated in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Reimbursement money could be used only by a public employee retirement system. Other entities would be prohibited from using it.
Amounts reimbursed under paragraph (1)— (A) may only be used by a public employee retirement system; and (B) may not be used by any other entity.
The bill would authorize Congress to provide $5,913,400,000 to FEMA's Administrator for fiscal year 2027 to carry out the reimbursement program. This is permission for an appropriation, rather than an appropriation that supplies funding.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out this section $5,913,400,000 for fiscal year 2027.
The supplied October 5, 2026 source snapshot records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 14, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T20:56:01Z. 2026-09-14: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-09-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-14. 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 what appears 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 earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A program funding authorization alone does not establish an earmark; this conclusion is limited to that version and does not resolve formal status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate preferential carve-out or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The program's intended beneficiaries are not, solely for that reason, classified as targeted benefits. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI