PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5] · D–NJ
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 Homeland Security.
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 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.10519 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.10519 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.10519 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.10519 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 · 2026-09-21 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.
H.R. 10519 proposes a temporary federal program giving participating critical infrastructure owners and operators access to government-procured artificial intelligence and technical help to address cybersecurity weaknesses. The tools and assistance would support protection, detection, testing and repairs. The program would end five years after enactment. These are proposed requirements, not evidence that the program currently exists.
shall establish a program, to be known as the Critical Infrastructure AI Cyber Defense Pilot Program (in this section referred to as the Program), through which owners and operators of critical infrastructure that participate in the Program are able to securely utilize artificial intelligence procured through the Secretary and technical assistance provided by the Secretary to protect against, detect, test for, and remediate vulnerabilities in the cybersecurity of such critical infrastructure.
The Program shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish the program within 120 days after enactment, acting through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and consulting with Sector Risk Management Agencies.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the Secretary), acting through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (in this section referred to as the Director) and in consultation with Sector Risk Management Agencies, shall establish a program
Owners or operators seeking participation would have to apply each year. The Secretary would determine the application timing, format and required information.
Each year, an owner or operator of critical infrastructure that seeks to participate in the Program shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
The Secretary would have to prioritize owners and operators determined to be nonprofit, publicly owned, rural or small. Meeting any one of those descriptions would qualify an owner or operator for priority.
In carrying out the Program, the Secretary shall prioritize any owners and operators of critical infrastructure that the Secretary determines to be any of the following: (1) Not-for-profit. (2) Publicly owned. (3) Rural. (4) Small-sized.
The Secretary, acting through the agency Director, would have to report to Congress and the Comptroller General within 30 days after the program is established and monthly afterward until it ends. For each reporting month, the reports would list grant counts, amounts and recipients, as applicable.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the establishment of the Program and monthly thereafter until the termination of the Program, the Secretary, acting through the Director, shall submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States a report on the Program that includes for the monthly period covered by such report the following, as applicable: (1) A specification of the following: (A) The number of grants awarded under the Program. (B) For each such grant, the amount of such grant. (2) An identification of the recipient of such grant.
The bill would authorize $100 million for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 collectively. This authorizes future funding; it does not itself appropriate, or provide, that money.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $100,000,000 for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out this section.
The Secretary could use no more than 5 percent of the authorized amounts for salaries, expenses and other administrative costs associated with procuring artificial intelligence and providing technical assistance.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraph (1), the Secretary may not utilize more than 5 percent of such amounts to cover salaries and expenses and other administrative costs incurred by the Secretary with respect to procuring artificial intelligence and providing technical assistance under this section.
The program would terminate five years after enactment. That deadline runs from enactment, rather than from the program's establishment.
The Program shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The bill would use definitions from existing laws for artificial intelligence, critical infrastructure and Sector Risk Management Agency. It does not reproduce those 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) Critical infrastructure The term critical infrastructure has the meaning given such term in section 1016 of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c). (3) Sector Risk Management Agency The term Sector Risk Management Agency has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Homeland Security on September 21, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T16:12:42Z. 2026-09-21: Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security. 2026-09-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-21. 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 rider 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 a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be fully assessed without accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text expressly gives certain participants priority within the main program. This classification identifies preferential treatment, not a judgment about its justification.
Critical infrastructure owners and operators determined by the Secretary to be nonprofit, publicly owned, rural or small would receive mandatory priority over participants without those characteristics. This preference operates within the bill's cybersecurity assistance program.
In carrying out the Program, the Secretary shall prioritize any owners and operators of critical infrastructure that the Secretary determines to be any of the following: (1) Not-for-profit. (2) Publicly owned. (3) Rural. (4) Small-sized.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI