PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 1, 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.10474 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.10474 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.10474 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.10474 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 · 2026-09-16 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 CISA Force Structure Assessment Act would require the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to assess whether it has the staff, resources, training, and professional certifications needed to do its work. The review would cover its responsibilities for government cybersecurity and critical infrastructure. CISA would have to report its findings and recommendations to two congressional committees within one year after enactment.
This Act may be cited as the CISA Force Structure Assessment Act.
The Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security shall conduct a force structure assessment of the ability of CISA to fulfill its mission.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of CISA shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report detailing the results of the assessment required under subsection (a), including recommendations to address any shortage of resources or personnel or gaps in relevant training or accredited, industry-recognized certifications for existing work roles, identified by such assessment.
CISA would have to assess both its current resources and staffing and what it needs to fulfill its responsibilities. It would also assess whether all personnel have the training and accredited, industry-recognized certifications needed for their existing roles. This is a requirement to evaluate staffing and qualifications.
The assessment conducted under subsection (a) shall include an assessment of the resources and total number of personnel necessary to carry out the mission of CISA, including an assessment of whether all personnel have the needed training and accredited, industry-recognized certifications for existing work roles and an assessment of the resources and number of personnel currently available, as of the date of such assessment, and if different, the resources and number of personnel necessary to carry out the responsibilities of CISA
The proposed review would cover security of federal information and information systems, security of state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and CISA's handling of reports submitted under section 2242 of the Homeland Security Act.
(1) The security of Federal information and Federal information systems. (2) The security of State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments. (3) The collection, analysis, and utilization of reports made pursuant to section 2242 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 681b).
The review would cover CISA's responsibilities for managing risks in infrastructure sectors and coordinating national critical infrastructure security and resilience. It would also cover security risks and capabilities associated with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and security cooperation with international allies and partners.
(4) CISA’s role as a Sector Risk Management Agency and the national coordinator for critical infrastructure security and resilience, in accordance with section 2218 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665d) and National Security Memorandum 22 (or any successor document). (5) The security risks and capabilities presented by emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and quantum computing. (6) The facilitation of cybersecurity and critical infrastructure security cooperation with international allies and partners.
CISA would assess its capacity to develop cyber defense plans, actively search for threats on federal information systems and operational technology, and operate the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative.
(7) The development of plans for cyber defense operations, in accordance with section 2216 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665b). (8) CISA’s ability to conduct threat hunting operations on Federal information systems and operational technology. (9) The operation of the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative.
The proposed assessment would examine CISA's ability to help government and nongovernment entities protect operational technology and keep it functioning through disruptions. It would also examine CISA's ability to provide external support for operational technology used in critical infrastructure.
(10) CISA’s ability to— (A) support the cybersecurity and operational resilience of operational technology used by government and non-government entities; and (B) provide external support to critical infrastructure operational technology.
The assessment would also cover CISA's role in cybersecurity asset response activities under the cited law and presidential directive, and operation of the Alliance of National Councils for Homeland Operational Resilience – Critical Infrastructure. The supplied text does not describe those activities or the alliance's operations in detail.
(11) CISA’s role in cybersecurity asset response activities, pursuant to section 2202(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 652(c)(1)) and Presidential Policy Directive 41 (or any successor document). (12) The operation of the Alliance of National Councils for Homeland Operational Resilience – Critical Infrastructure.
The CISA Director would have to consult relevant stakeholders while developing the assessment. Required participants would include heads of other federal departments and agencies, information-sharing and analysis organizations, sector coordinating councils, and state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.
In developing the assessment conducted under subsection (a), the Director of CISA shall consult with relevant stakeholders, including the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, sector coordinating councils, and State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.
Within one year after enactment, the CISA Director would have to send the assessment results to the House Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The report would have to recommend ways to address any identified shortages of resources or personnel and gaps in training or accredited, industry-recognized certifications for existing roles.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of CISA shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report detailing the results of the assessment required under subsection (a), including recommendations to address any shortage of resources or personnel or gaps in relevant training or accredited, industry-recognized certifications for existing work roles, identified by such assessment.
The proposal would use definitions from existing federal law for artificial intelligence, information-sharing and analysis organizations, and information systems. It identifies the relevant laws without reproducing their definitions.
(1) Artificial intelligence The term artificial intelligence has the meaning given such term in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401). (2) Information sharing and analysis organization The term Information Sharing and Analysis Organization has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650). (3) Information system The term information system has the meaning given such term in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 1, 2026, records introduction in the House on September 16, 2026, and referral that day to the Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce committees for consideration within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-01T20:33:31Z.
2026-09-16: Introduced in House
2026-09-16: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. 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 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 and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark status cannot be determined from materials not supplied.
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 does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 1, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI