PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
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 the Judiciary.
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.10558 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.10558 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.10558 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.10558 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 · 2026-09-24 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 CLEAR Act would require Treasury to publish details and searchable monthly totals about Judgment Fund payments for legal claims and judgments, subject to legal and court-ordered disclosure restrictions. The Comptroller General would review each settlement subject to payments under the referenced chapter and report annually to Congress on the bill’s defined “sue-and-settle tactics.” The bill would also protect the identities of people who disclose payment information.
unless the disclosure of such information is otherwise prohibited by law or a court order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the public on a website
the Secretary shall ensure that the website tabulates the total number of payments per month, including how many payments were settlements
The Comptroller General of the United States shall review each settlement subject to payments under this chapter and submit to Congress an annual report identifying and analyzing the use of sue-and-settle tactics
The identity of any individual who discloses information with respect to a payment made under this section may not be disclosed.
Section 1 would name the bill the Clearer Liability Expenditure and Access to Reporting Act of 2026, or CLEAR Act.
This Act may be cited as the Clearer Liability Expenditure and Access to Reporting Act of 2026 or the CLEAR Act.
Section 2 would replace subsection (d) of 31 U.S.C. 1304. Treasury would have to post payment information as soon as practicable, within 30 days after a payment is tendered, unless disclosure is prohibited by law or court order. The text anchors the start of this requirement to 60 days after enactment of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, rather than enactment of this proposal.
Section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, is amended— (1) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
Beginning not later than the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, and unless the disclosure of such information is otherwise prohibited by law or a court order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the public on a website, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the date on which a payment under this section is tendered
Subject to the disclosure restrictions, the website would identify the agency or entity whose actions led to the claim or judgment, the person or organization bringing the claim, their lawyer, and the agency submitting the claim. It would also briefly describe the underlying facts.
(A) The name of the specific agency or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or judgment. (B) The name of the plaintiff or claimant. (C) The name of counsel for the plaintiff or claimant.
(E) A brief description of the facts that gave rise to the claim. (F) The name of the agency that submitted the claim.
unless the disclosure of such information is otherwise prohibited by law or a court order
Subject to the disclosure restrictions, Treasury would publish the amount paid for the underlying legal obligation and amounts paid for related obligations, including attorney fees, costs, and interest.
(D) The amount paid representing principal liability, and any amounts paid representing any ancillary liability, including attorney fees, costs, and interest.
unless the disclosure of such information is otherwise prohibited by law or a court order
The website would count payments each month, including how many were settlements. Users would be able to search by the agency or entity responsible, the plaintiff or claimant, and their lawyer, including the lawyer’s firm or office.
(2) In addition to the information described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that the website tabulates the total number of payments per month, including how many payments were settlements, which shall be searchable by the following categories: (A) Each specific agency or entity whose actions resulted in a payment. (B) Each plaintiff or claimant. (C) Each counsel, including identifying the counsel’s firm or office, for each plaintiff or claimant.
For each searchable category, Treasury would provide monthly dollar totals broken down into payments, including settlements; attorney fees; court costs; and interest.
(3) Each category described in subsection (d)(2) shall be disaggregated by the total amount paid each month, further disaggregated by the total amount for each of the following categories: (A) Payments, including settlements. (B) Attorney’s fees. (C) Court costs. (D) Interest.
The Comptroller General would have to review each settlement subject to payments under the referenced chapter and report to Congress annually on what the bill calls “sue-and-settle tactics.” The report would identify the agencies using these tactics most frequently, average settlement amounts, common features and trends, and any other information the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
(e) (1) The Comptroller General of the United States shall review each settlement subject to payments under this chapter and submit to Congress an annual report identifying and analyzing the use of sue-and-settle tactics, including— (A) the Federal agencies that most frequently engage in sue-and-settle tactics; (B) average settlement amounts associated with such tactics; (C) common characteristics and trends among such settlements; and (D) such other information as the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
For that reporting requirement, “sue-and-settle tactics” would broadly cover a federal entity settling, entering into a consent decree, or otherwise agreeing during actual or threatened litigation to abandon a policy, regulation, rule, or contract; decline to enforce a statute or regulation; or perform another federal action adopted by a federal entity. This is the bill’s reporting definition, not a finding that any particular settlement involved wrongdoing.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term sue-and-settle tactics means any circumstance under which a Federal entity, in the course of litigation or threatened litigation, settles, enters into a consent decree, or otherwise agrees to withdraw, rescind, retract, or otherwise abandon a policy, regulation, rule, or contract, not to enforce a statute or regulation, or to perform any other Federal action adopted by a Federal entity.
A new subsection would prohibit disclosure of the identity of any individual person who discloses information about a payment made under this section.
(f) The identity of any individual who discloses information with respect to a payment made under this section may not be disclosed.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T19:02:36Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. 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 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 established for absent 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 benefit 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 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI