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 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 2, 2025
Protecting Information by Local Leaders for Agency Resilience Act or the PILLAR Act
This bill extends the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program through FY2035, expands the scope of the program, and imposes certain limits on the use of grant funds. (The program provides grants to states and Indian tribes to address cybersecurity risks to government information systems.)
The bill expands the scope of systems that may be secured using grant funds to include operational technology systems and specifies that systems using artificial intelligence are included. Such systems must be maintained, owned, or operated by or on behalf of state, local, or tribal governments.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also specifies that grant funds may not be used to purchase software, hardware, or related products or services that do not align with relevant guidance provided by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Further, the bill increases the federal share of costs available to entities that implement or enable multifactor authentication and identity and access management tools for critical infrastructure by a specified date.
The bill requires annual reports by grant recipients to include a description of recipients’ progress in assuming the cost of continuing cybersecurity programs after grant funds are fully expended.
The Government Accountability Office must periodically review the program. This effort must include a review of artificial intelligence adoption across a sample of grants.
Finally, CISA must implement an outreach plan to inform local governments, including governments in rural areas or areas with small populations, about CISA’s no-cost cybersecurity offerings.
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4685-4687)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4685-4687)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5078.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4685-4688)
Mr. Garbarino moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 328.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-377.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-377.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 1.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.5078 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.5078 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.5078 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.5078 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.