PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Aug 15, 2025
Strengthening Cyber Resilience Against State-Sponsored Threats Act
The bill creates a joint interagency task force to facilitate agency collaboration on efforts to respond to Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors, including Volt Typhoon.
The task force must be established and led by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The task force must facilitate collaboration and coordination among the Sector Risk Management Agencies (SRMAs) specified in the President's National Security Memorandum- 22 (e.g., the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture) to detect, analyze, and respond to Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors by ensuring that such agencies’ actions are aligned and mutually reinforcing.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill directs DHS, CISA, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and specified SRMAs to provide the task force with analysis, inspections, audits, and other relevant information necessary for the task force to carry out its responsibilities. The production and use of information must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and task force members must have appropriate security clearances to access classified information.
The task force must provide annual reports and briefings to Congress detailing its assessment of cyber threats and recommendations to improve the detection and mitigation of the cybersecurity threat posed by Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors.
The first report must be provided no later than 540 days after the establishment of the task force, and additional reports must be provided annually thereafter for six years.
People & committees
Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 402 - 8 (Roll no. 287). (text: CR H4682-4684)
House roll call 287 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 402 - 8 (Roll no. 287). (text: CR H4682-4684)
House roll call 287 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4692)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2659.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4682-4685)
Mr. Garbarino moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 188.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-230.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-230.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 13, 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.2659 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.2659 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.2659 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.2659 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.